Ok. It seems that /etc/sudoers has "Defaults " rule where I had no
such rule in IPA. so after creating it seems secure_path is working
now

вт, 3 сент. 2024 г. в 19:34, Alexander Bokovoy <[email protected]>:
>
> On Аўт, 03 вер 2024, alexey safonov via FreeIPA-users wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I've checked all related output in Google search and this mailing
> >list, but still have no answer to a question, why secure_path option
> >is ignored by IPA?
> >
> >here is what I have in IPA
> >  Sudo Option: !requiretty, !authenticate,
> >secure_path=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin
> >
> >here is the output
> >
> >[aaa@bbbb ~]$ sudo printenv PATH
> >/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin
> >
> >for some reason that path is only taken from /etc/sudoers file
>
> IPA LDAP is just a store for SUDO rules. The heavy lifting is done by
> SSSD sudoers plugin. You can use
> https://sssd.io/troubleshooting/sudo.html to generate SUDO and SSSD logs
> and see whether a particular rule or options are present and sent to
> SUDO for processing.
>
>
>
> --
> / Alexander Bokovoy
> Sr. Principal Software Engineer
> Security / Identity Management Engineering
> Red Hat Limited, Finland
>
-- 
_______________________________________________
FreeIPA-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to