[PLUG] To login or to not login?

[Derek Loree]

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 11:43, Rich Shepard wrote:
>   I'd greatly appreciate someone passing me a pointer -- by reference will
> do, thank you -- to the differences between login shells and non-login
> shells. When does one want one and not the other?

It's just like it sounds, one type of shell will allow you to login and
interact with it, the other has no login capabilities.  Bash is an
example of a login shell, /dev/null is an extreme example of a non-login
shell.  Debian uses /bin/false as a non-login shell.  This allows the
system to have users that are not allowed to login.  The user that sshd
runs under would be a good candidate for a non-login shell.

When I create a user that will only have ftp access, I change the shell
to /dev/null for that user, ftp still allows login, but no shell will
ever be presented if that user tries to login through ssh (or telnet, if
it is running).

> 
>   The context for this question is that, apparently, Red Hat uses only login
> shells while slackware and debian don't. It's a pothole in my knowledge that
> I'd like to fill.
> 
Not having a RH box handy, I would have to doubt this.  This concept has
been around for a while, and I know you've at least got /dev/null :)

Look in your passwd file, what shell is the sshd user assigned to (the
last entry)?  Or the mysql user? Or the identd user?

HTH

Derek Loree