From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C3DB61758
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  9 Feb 2022 14:56:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 79C382E89
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  9 Feb 2022 14:56:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id D083C2E80
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  9 Feb 2022 14:56:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA23646C5F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  9 Feb 2022 14:56:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:56:07 +0100
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <20220209135607.aevcpm3vkamjazrw@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
References: <20220207124825.1116194-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
 <20220207124825.1116194-2-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220207124825.1116194-2-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.391 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 2/2] fix #3853: tape cli: add
 force flag to key change-passphrase
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 13:56:39 -0000

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +0100, Stefan Sterz wrote:
> Adds the '--force' flag to the proxmox-tape command allowing users
> with root privileges to overwrite the passphrase of a given key.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  src/bin/proxmox_tape/encryption_key.rs | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/bin/proxmox_tape/encryption_key.rs b/src/bin/proxmox_tape/encryption_key.rs
> index 156295fd..3dd9b58b 100644
> --- a/src/bin/proxmox_tape/encryption_key.rs
> +++ b/src/bin/proxmox_tape/encryption_key.rs
> @@ -146,11 +146,18 @@ fn show_key(
>              hint: {
>                  schema: PASSWORD_HINT_SCHEMA,
>              },
> +            force: {
> +                optional: true,
> +                type: bool,
> +                description: "Don't ask for the old passphrase and overwrite it. Root only.",
> +                default: false,
> +            },
>          },
>      },
>  )]
>  /// Change the encryption key's password.
>  fn change_passphrase(
> +    force: bool,
>      mut param: Value,
>      rpcenv: &mut dyn RpcEnvironment,
>  ) -> Result<(), Error> {
> @@ -159,11 +166,23 @@ fn change_passphrase(
>          bail!("unable to change passphrase - no tty");
>      }
>  
> -    let password = tty::read_password("Current Tape Encryption Key Password: ")?;
> +    let effective_uid = nix::unistd::Uid::effective();
> +    let running_uid = nix::unistd::Uid::current();
> +
> +    // if the `--force` flag is provided check if we are root
> +    if force && !effective_uid.is_root() && !running_uid.is_root() {
> +        bail!("the force flag requires root privileges");
> +    }

^ Wrong place for this.

Also, as a general note, checks such as this one should simply not be
done by CLI tools unless they're actually installed as `setuid-root`
since it's the OS' job to do permission checks.

I may be running an unprivileged root (dropped capabilities, entered
some restrictive AppArmor label), or I may actually be a *privileged*
non-zero-uid for some reason as well...