Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> writes:

> The problem though, arises in 2 places.

> 1. Extra nsswitch modules, such as mdns, systemd-resolved (which is
>    optional since resolv.conf works), and so on, which expects their
>    files to be in the chroot jail (exacly like on FreeBSD with this
>    same mechanism).

> 2. Cyrus SASL, - for any non-trivial (PLAIN or LOGIN) methods, it
>    needs the secrets database to be accessible in the chroot, and
>    people on the 'net suggest really crazy things to fix this (like
>    moving /etc/sasl2 userdb to /var/spool/postfix/etc/ and symlinking
>    it back to /etc/sasl2).

> 3. Various postfix map lookup types which require additional stuff -
>    for these, there's an easy solution in postfix exists for over
>    20 years, which is a proxy: map.  So this is not an issue.

> My initial intention was to turn chroot in postfix immediately.
> However, I can't do anything without understanding the root issues
> first.  And my discovery turned out to be quite interesting.  So I
> really wonder...

> What do you think about this aspect of postfix on debian?

I personally have been very happy with the default chroot of Postfix and
have not had any trouble with it, but I also don't do any of the three
things you list, so that makes sense.  It's a nice default for simple
systems, but I understand why it's frustrating for people who are doing
more complex things.

So, I wouldn't object to undoing that given upstream's stance, but maybe
it would be good to do that in conjunction with adding more hardening to
the default configuration with systemd?  systemd-analyze security
postfix@- shows a whole lot of things that could potentially be improved
in hardening settings, and while a lot of those won't work becuase of the
number of things Postfix needs to be able to do, a lot of them are
probably reasonable changes to the defaults if accompanied by instructions
for how to turn them off with an override file.  There is some obvious
stuff like ProtectSystem, PrivateDevices, or ProtectKernelTunables that
seems quite unlikely to break anything.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply via email to