[X2go-dev] Use case for an x2go user-group

[Alexander Wuerstlein]

On 11-02-18 19:59, Gerry Reno <greno at verizon.net> wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 01:18 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 18:52:28 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 17:18 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >>     
> >>> <snip>The question is if there was a legitimate use-case for having users
> >>> that can login via ssh, but are not in the x2gousers group, i.e., cannot
> >>> login via x2go.
> >>>       
> >> <snip>
> >> It's a bit of a stretch but I could see it in hosted environments like
> >> ours.  Although we do not do this specifically, let's say there is an
> >> application server which is also hosting X2Go desktops.  The client may
> >> have an external consultant/support person who should not have a
> >> billable X2Go desktop but does need console access to support the
> >> application via, say, a VPN connection.
> >>
> >> Come to think of it, I suppose that is not just a hosting issue.  A
> >> company using X2Go may not want to give desktop access to consultants
> >> who are supporting applications running on the same server.  That sounds
> >> like poor practice but there may be some legitimate reason to do that
> >> which we haven't considered.  Is that more in line with what you were
> >> asking? Thanks - John
> >>     
> > Indeed, that would.
> >
> > AFAIUI, you also agree that this is a pretty obscure corner case that is
> > not worth to have as default. Therefore, I suggest to drop the sudo
> > stuff completely and install x2gowrapper as 'suid x2gouser' so that no
> > additional configuration is necessary. With this change, the use-case
> > above doesn't work anymore.
> >
> > In order to restore that functionality, the database schema would need
> > to be extended to implement a blacklist. And in fact, your explanation
> > kindof confirms that a blacklist would be more suited than the current
> > whitelist (i.e., the x2gousers group) approach.
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> Are you implying that every user on any x2go server would be able to
> launch a remote x2go desktop by default?

Yes.

> We don't have any problems with the current mechanism of 'x2gousers'
> providing the control.
> 
> And in fact in most OS you see 'groups' are specifically there for the
> express purpose of controlling access to functionality.

Yes, but in large setups, groups become very hard to manage. Large
groups with thousands of users tend to be an administration burden, also
a large number of additional groups for each user tends to be
problematic with many operating systems or setups (NIS, SQL, older
unices, etc).

> In many companies only certain employees such as field personnel or
> sales are permitted remote desktop access.  And the 'x2gousers' group
> suits this purpose well.

Yes, it does on small scales. And our approach wouldn't make the
'x2gousers' group go away if you still want to use it: You can simply
make the x2gowrapper executable only for that group and not for others.
Then you have exactly the same functionality as with 'sudo', but without
the hassle of setting up the sudo configuration (wich does never seem to
work automatically on installation). That would also be the suggested
migration path i guess. Additionally you can of course use database
black/whitelists, or you can set x2gowrapper o+rx and only use database
black/whitelists. In that sense our approach would also be far more
flexible than the current sudo approach.




Ciao,

Alexander Wuerstlein.