2011-11-01 06:03:20 +01:00
|
|
|
# F=auth authentication versus authorisation
|
2011-07-25 10:03:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document will explain why an "ssh issue" is almost never a "gitolite
|
|
|
|
issue", and, indirectly, why I dont get too excited about the former.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-01 06:03:20 +01:00
|
|
|
Note: for actual ssh troubleshooting see [this][sts].
|
2011-07-25 10:03:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a fundamental point: <font color="red">**Gitolite does not do
|
|
|
|
authentication. It only does authorisation**.</font>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So first, let's loosely define these words:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> **Authentication** is the process of verifying that you are who you claim
|
|
|
|
> to be. An authentication system will establish that I am the user
|
|
|
|
> "sitaram" on my work system. The one behind gmail will similarly
|
|
|
|
> establish that I am "sitaramc". And so on...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> **Authorisation** is the process of asking what you want to do and
|
|
|
|
> deciding if you're allowed to do it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-01 06:03:20 +01:00
|
|
|
Now, if you managed to read about [gitolite and ssh][gl_ssh], you know that
|
2011-07-25 10:03:21 +02:00
|
|
|
gitolite is meant to be invoked as:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/full/path/to/gl-auth-command some-authenticated-gitolite-username
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(where the "gitolite username" is a "virtual" username; it does not have to
|
|
|
|
be, and usually *isn't*, an actual *unix* username).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you can see, authentication happens before gitolite is called.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-01 06:03:20 +01:00
|
|
|
## but... but... you have all that ssh stuff in there!
|
2011-07-25 10:03:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The default mode of using gitolite does use ssh keys, but all it's doing is
|
|
|
|
helping you **setup** ssh-based authentication **as a convenience to you**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to use it, though. And many people don't. The examples I know
|
2011-11-01 06:03:20 +01:00
|
|
|
are [smart http][http], and ldap-backed sshd. In both cases, gitolite has no
|
2011-07-25 10:03:21 +02:00
|
|
|
role to play in creating users, setting up their passwords/keys, etc. There's
|
|
|
|
even a `GL_NO_SETUP_AUTHKEYS` option to make sure gitolite doesn't meddle with
|
|
|
|
the authkeys file in such installations.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-01 06:03:20 +01:00
|
|
|
## so you're basically saying you won't support "X"
|
2011-07-25 10:03:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(where "X" is some ssh related behaviour change or feature)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if it's not a security issue I *probably* won't. I'm willing to change
|
|
|
|
my mind if enough people convince me they need it. (There's a mailing list if
|
|
|
|
you want to find others who also need the same thing.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While we're on the subject, locking someone out is *not* a security issue.
|
|
|
|
Even if you locked yourself (the admin) out, the docs tell you how to recover
|
|
|
|
from such errors. You do need some password based method to get a shell
|
|
|
|
command line on the server, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-01 06:03:20 +01:00
|
|
|
## appendix: how to use other authentication systems with gitolite
|
2011-07-25 10:03:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bottom line in terms of how to invoke gitolite has been described above,
|
|
|
|
and as long as you manage to do that gitolite won't even know how the
|
|
|
|
authentication was done. Which in turn means you can use whatever
|
|
|
|
authentication scheme you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It also expects the `SSH_ORIGINAL_COMMAND` environment variable to contain the
|
|
|
|
full command (typically starting with git-receive-pack or git-upload-pack)
|
2011-11-01 06:03:20 +01:00
|
|
|
that the client sent. Also, when using [smart http][http], things are somewhat
|
2011-07-25 10:03:21 +02:00
|
|
|
different: gitolite uses certain environment variables that it expects httpd
|
|
|
|
to have set up. Even the user name comes from the `REMOTE_USER` environment
|
|
|
|
variable instead of as a command line argument in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, it has to be an authentication system that is compatible with sshd or
|
|
|
|
httpd in some form. Why? Because the git *client* accessing the server only
|
|
|
|
knows those 2 protocols to "speak git". (Well, the `git://` protocol is
|
|
|
|
unauthenticated, and `file://` doesn't really apply to this discussion, so
|
|
|
|
we're ignoring those).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, let's say you have an LDAP-based authentication system somewhere.
|
|
|
|
It is possible to make apache use that to authenticate users, so when a user
|
|
|
|
accesses a git url using `http://sitaram:password@git.example.com/repo`, it is
|
|
|
|
LDAP that does the actual authentication. [I wouldn't know how to do it but I
|
|
|
|
know it is possible. Patches to this doc explaining how are welcome!]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are also ssh daemons that use LDAP to store the authorised keys (instead
|
|
|
|
of putting them all in `~/.ssh/authorized_keys`). The clients will still need
|
|
|
|
to generate keypairs and send them to the admin, but they can be more
|
|
|
|
centrally stored and perhaps used by other programs or tools simultaneously,
|
|
|
|
which can be useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, gitolite allows you to store *group* information externally too. See
|
|
|
|
[here][ldap] for more on this.
|
|
|
|
|