rsync all files of remote machine over SSH without root user?
up vote
63
down vote
favorite
I have this command to backup a remote machine. The problem is that I need root rights to read and copy all files. I have no root user enabled for security reasons and use sudo
the Ubuntu way. Would I need some cool piping or something to do this?
rsync -chavzP --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ /media/backupdisk/myserverbackup/
ubuntu ssh backup rsync
add a comment |
up vote
63
down vote
favorite
I have this command to backup a remote machine. The problem is that I need root rights to read and copy all files. I have no root user enabled for security reasons and use sudo
the Ubuntu way. Would I need some cool piping or something to do this?
rsync -chavzP --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ /media/backupdisk/myserverbackup/
ubuntu ssh backup rsync
3
Just use theroot
account in the first place.sudo
, especially combined withNOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, doesn't really improve the security of your machine.
– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:01
add a comment |
up vote
63
down vote
favorite
up vote
63
down vote
favorite
I have this command to backup a remote machine. The problem is that I need root rights to read and copy all files. I have no root user enabled for security reasons and use sudo
the Ubuntu way. Would I need some cool piping or something to do this?
rsync -chavzP --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ /media/backupdisk/myserverbackup/
ubuntu ssh backup rsync
I have this command to backup a remote machine. The problem is that I need root rights to read and copy all files. I have no root user enabled for security reasons and use sudo
the Ubuntu way. Would I need some cool piping or something to do this?
rsync -chavzP --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ /media/backupdisk/myserverbackup/
ubuntu ssh backup rsync
ubuntu ssh backup rsync
edited Mar 4 at 15:10
asked Sep 24 '13 at 3:43
redanimalwar
430157
430157
3
Just use theroot
account in the first place.sudo
, especially combined withNOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, doesn't really improve the security of your machine.
– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:01
add a comment |
3
Just use theroot
account in the first place.sudo
, especially combined withNOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, doesn't really improve the security of your machine.
– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:01
3
3
Just use the
root
account in the first place. sudo
, especially combined with NOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, doesn't really improve the security of your machine.– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:01
Just use the
root
account in the first place. sudo
, especially combined with NOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, doesn't really improve the security of your machine.– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:01
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
up vote
77
down vote
accepted
I would recommend that you just use the root account in the first place. If you set it up like this:
- Configure your
sshd_config
on the target machine toPermitRootLogin without-password
. - Use
ssh-keygen
on the machine that pulls the backup to create an SSH private key (only if you don't already have an SSH key). Do not set a passphrase. Google a tutorial if you need details for this, there should be plenty. - Append the contents of
/root/.ssh/id_rsa.pub
of the backup machine to the/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
of your target machine. - Now your backup machine has root access to your target machine, without having to use password authentication.
then the resulting setup should be pretty safe.
sudo
, especially combined with NOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, has no security benefits over just using the root account. For example this suggestion:
add the following to your
/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
essentially gives rsyncuser
root permissions anyway. You ask:
@MartinvonWittich Easy to gain a full root shell because
rsync
executed withsudo
? Walk [m]e [through] that please.
Well, simple. With the recommended configuration, rsyncuser
may now run rsync
as root without even being asked for a password. rsync
is a very powerful tool to manipulate files, so now rsyncuser
has a very powerful tool to manipulate files with root permissions. Finding a way to exploit this took me just a few minutes (tested on Ubuntu 13.04, requires dash
, bash
didn't work):
martin@martin ~ % sudo rsync --perms --chmod u+s /bin/dash /bin/rootdash
martin@martin ~ % rootdash
# whoami
root
# touch /etc/evil
# tail -n1 /etc/shadow
dnsmasq:*:15942:0:99999:7:::
As you can see, I have created myself a root shell; whoami
identifies my account as root, I can create files in /etc
, and I can read from /etc/shadow
. My exploit was to set the setuid bit on the dash
binary; it causes Linux to always run that binary with the permissions of the owner, in this case root.
Having a real root is not [recommended] for good reasons. – redanimalwar 15 hours ago
No, clumsily working around the root account in situations where it is absolutely appropriate to use it is not for good reasons. This is just another form of cargo cult programming - you don't really understand the concept behind sudo vs root, you just blindly apply the belief "root is bad, sudo is good" because you've read that somewhere.
On the one hand, there are situations where sudo
is definitely the right tool for the job. For example, when you're interactively working on a graphical Linux desktop, let's say Ubuntu, then having to use sudo
is fine in those rare cases where you sometimes need root access. Ubuntu intentionally has a disabled root account and forces you to use sudo
by default to prevent users from just always using the root account to log in. When the user just wants to use e.g. the web browser, then logging in as root would be a dangerous thing, and therefore not having a root account by default prevents stupid people from doing this.
On the other hand, there are situations like yours, where an automated script requires root permissions to something, for example to make a backup. Now using sudo
to work around the root account is not only pointless, it's also dangerous: at first glance rsyncuser
looks like an ordinary unprivileged account. But as I've already explained, it would be very easy for an attacker to gain full root access if he had already gained rsyncuser
access. So essentially, you now have an additional root account that doesn't look like a root account at all, which is not a good thing.
2
Nice explanation. Would another reason for using sudo over root be in the situation where multiple people have sysadmin roles on a server? This way each can use their own SSH keys instead of sharing the SSH key of root?
– Nathan S. Watson-Haigh
Jan 22 '14 at 21:33
2
@NathanS.Watson-Haigh you could just as easy put all SSH keys into/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
, or even create multiple root accounts with different homes so each user can have his own shell, home and.ssh/authorized_keys
:)
– Martin von Wittich
Jan 23 '14 at 11:17
2
You can restrict ssh keys to only allowing certain commands, too. Definitely a good idea, since if you're automating something, you will probably be making these ssh keys without any passphrase, or at least so they're accessible all the time a machine is running. (meaning that root on that machine grants access to root on other machines.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:10
2
Martin's concerns regarding using sudo root are valid, but it seems they could be mitigated by specifying the exact rsync parameters in the sudoers file. According to the sudoers(5) man page on Ubuntu: "If a Cmnd has associated command line arguments, then the arguments in the Cmnd must match exactly those given by the user on the command line (or match the wildcards if there are any)." If the sudoers file specifies the exact rsync command with the exact options (including source and destination), then it seems it should be safe.
– user155566
Feb 8 '16 at 18:41
4
One consideration not brought up earlier:sshd
generally does not log which authorized key was used to connect to an account, so if you connect asbob
thensudo
, you get a better audit trail than if you connect in toroot
directly withbob
's key.
– Coderer
Jun 15 '16 at 12:44
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
65
down vote
Make use of the --rsync-path
option to make the remote rsync
command run with sudo
privileges. Your command should then be e.g.:
rsync -chavzP --rsync-path="sudo rsync" --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ .
If sudo
prompts you for a password, you have to avoid that either by using a NOPASSWD
privilege with the remote user account (pointless for root, may make sense in other use cases), or if you don't want to do that:
Make sure that the option
tty_tickets
is disabled for the user you
are using, by running e.g.sudo visudo -f /etc/sudoers.d/local-rsync
and entering:
Defaults:your.username.for.rsync !tty_tickets
Make sure that the option
requiretty
is disabled for the user you are
using - it could be off by default. The method is the same as above.Seed the
sudo
password on the remote machine, by running e.g.
ssh -t user@192.168.1.2 sudo
1
@scai the password that is asked for is most likely thesudo
password, not thessh
password
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:15
2
@redanimalwar allows your user tosudo /usr/bin/rsync
without asking for a passphrase; checkman sudoers
for how to do this; you might want to create an extra backup user for this.
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:17
5
To allowsudo /usr/bin/rsync
to run without requiring as password add the following to your/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
This will allow the user rsyncuser (as mentioned above it would be best to create a dedicated backup user) with the username you want.
– M_dk
Sep 24 '13 at 9:38
4
@M_dk nowrsync
essentially always has root permissions; it's probably very easy to gain a full root shell in that account. I think it's better to just use the real root account in the first place.
– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:00
1
The answer in no way speaking ofecho "password" | something
I actually never used this and agree with the security problems coming with letting sudoless execution of rsync (also not suggested here) is bad. What thetty_tickets
does I have actually no idea, seems needed and a security issue. This would work securely without tweaking anything by just running sodo on ssh and then executing the command right? But since I asked that question for scriping purposes, I totally agree that key based ssh without pw is the secure and right was to do. I accepted Martins answer instead.
– redanimalwar
Mar 7 '15 at 16:47
|
show 8 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
One simple way to do this is to use the graphical ssh-askpass
program with sudo
, this gets around the fact that sudo
is not connected to the terminal and allows you to enter the password safely:
rsync -chavzPe 'ssh -X' --stats
--rsync-path='SUDO_ASKPASS=/usr/lib/ssh/x11-ssh-askpass sudo -A rsync'
user@192.168.1.2:/ .
Of course the ssh-askpass
program must be installed in the given location and you must be running an X session on the machine you are working on. There are a few variations on the ssh-askpass
program which should also work (Gnome/KDE versions). Also a graphical sudo
replacement program like gksu
or kdesudo
should also work.
rsync --rsh='ssh -X' --rsync-path='gksudo -- rsync' user@host:/ .
doesn't work.rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(1634) [server=3.1.1]
. Oh, ubuntu does ship gnome-ssh-askpass, but it's/usr/bin/ssh-askpass
, instead of/usr/lib/ssh/x11...
. So that worked :)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:05
1
This is one of the better solutions as it doesn't need any reconfiguration on the other end -- just needs the askpass installed and X forwarding enabled, both of which should be fairly common.
– David Gardner
Aug 4 '15 at 10:55
1
Works like a charm after installingssh-askpass
. I just had to look up the meaning of-chavzPe
, would be great to spell these out as long options.
– krlmlr
Oct 14 '16 at 16:19
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
If your user has already sudo privileges which are protected with a password I would keep them as-is and only add a stanza to use rsync without a password:
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
%admin ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
I ran into this problem today and solved it without the need for modifying configuration files or granting root-level permissions to user accounts. My particular set-up was that user A
on machine foo
had to copy all of the user directories from foo
to machine bar
in a backup
directory that user A
owned. (User A
has sudo privileges on foo
.)
The command I used is below. It was invoked by user A
in the /home
directory on foo
.
sudo rsync -avu -e "ssh -i /home/A/.ssh/id_rsa -l A" * B:/home/backup
This runs rsync as sudo so that all user directories on foo
can be accessed but it tells rsync to use ssh to access machine bar
using user A
's credentials. My needs were slightly different than the question above but this allowed me to quickly get a backup of all the user directories on a particular machine I manage without mucking with the system's configuration.
2
This is brilliant. I forgot about the-i
option tossh
. You can use--rsync-path="sudo /usr/bin/rsync"
if you have sudo on machinebar
. This then does reading asroot@foo
and writing asroot@bar
, but transferring viaA@foo
->B@bar
. Thanks!
– ctbrown
Jan 21 '16 at 18:09
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Running rsync as daemon on the target machine allows you to do what you want.
1
I upvoted this answer, but it would be better w/ some explanation of how to get the rsynch daemon running, and how you use it w/ root access.
– Mike Lippert
Feb 9 '15 at 16:29
rsync as daemon wouldn't match this case, because rsync will drop root permissions even when started as root then not all files could be transferred.
– teissler
Apr 22 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
My solution is to use --rsync-path="sudo rsync"
but it ask for password, workaround:
rsync -chavzP --stats --rsync-path="echo <SUDOPASS> | sudo -Sv && sudo rsync" user@192.168.1.2:/ .
1
It usually isn't a good idea to put passwords into a command line one-liner; they become visible in the process tree, for example. I sometimes replace the actual password in this type of statement with$( cat my_password.txt )
which is slightly better, but it is usually preferred to configure the permissions on either end, and/or use SSH keys, in such a way that passwords aren't required on the CLI
– JDS
May 2 at 15:13
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
77
down vote
accepted
I would recommend that you just use the root account in the first place. If you set it up like this:
- Configure your
sshd_config
on the target machine toPermitRootLogin without-password
. - Use
ssh-keygen
on the machine that pulls the backup to create an SSH private key (only if you don't already have an SSH key). Do not set a passphrase. Google a tutorial if you need details for this, there should be plenty. - Append the contents of
/root/.ssh/id_rsa.pub
of the backup machine to the/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
of your target machine. - Now your backup machine has root access to your target machine, without having to use password authentication.
then the resulting setup should be pretty safe.
sudo
, especially combined with NOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, has no security benefits over just using the root account. For example this suggestion:
add the following to your
/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
essentially gives rsyncuser
root permissions anyway. You ask:
@MartinvonWittich Easy to gain a full root shell because
rsync
executed withsudo
? Walk [m]e [through] that please.
Well, simple. With the recommended configuration, rsyncuser
may now run rsync
as root without even being asked for a password. rsync
is a very powerful tool to manipulate files, so now rsyncuser
has a very powerful tool to manipulate files with root permissions. Finding a way to exploit this took me just a few minutes (tested on Ubuntu 13.04, requires dash
, bash
didn't work):
martin@martin ~ % sudo rsync --perms --chmod u+s /bin/dash /bin/rootdash
martin@martin ~ % rootdash
# whoami
root
# touch /etc/evil
# tail -n1 /etc/shadow
dnsmasq:*:15942:0:99999:7:::
As you can see, I have created myself a root shell; whoami
identifies my account as root, I can create files in /etc
, and I can read from /etc/shadow
. My exploit was to set the setuid bit on the dash
binary; it causes Linux to always run that binary with the permissions of the owner, in this case root.
Having a real root is not [recommended] for good reasons. – redanimalwar 15 hours ago
No, clumsily working around the root account in situations where it is absolutely appropriate to use it is not for good reasons. This is just another form of cargo cult programming - you don't really understand the concept behind sudo vs root, you just blindly apply the belief "root is bad, sudo is good" because you've read that somewhere.
On the one hand, there are situations where sudo
is definitely the right tool for the job. For example, when you're interactively working on a graphical Linux desktop, let's say Ubuntu, then having to use sudo
is fine in those rare cases where you sometimes need root access. Ubuntu intentionally has a disabled root account and forces you to use sudo
by default to prevent users from just always using the root account to log in. When the user just wants to use e.g. the web browser, then logging in as root would be a dangerous thing, and therefore not having a root account by default prevents stupid people from doing this.
On the other hand, there are situations like yours, where an automated script requires root permissions to something, for example to make a backup. Now using sudo
to work around the root account is not only pointless, it's also dangerous: at first glance rsyncuser
looks like an ordinary unprivileged account. But as I've already explained, it would be very easy for an attacker to gain full root access if he had already gained rsyncuser
access. So essentially, you now have an additional root account that doesn't look like a root account at all, which is not a good thing.
2
Nice explanation. Would another reason for using sudo over root be in the situation where multiple people have sysadmin roles on a server? This way each can use their own SSH keys instead of sharing the SSH key of root?
– Nathan S. Watson-Haigh
Jan 22 '14 at 21:33
2
@NathanS.Watson-Haigh you could just as easy put all SSH keys into/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
, or even create multiple root accounts with different homes so each user can have his own shell, home and.ssh/authorized_keys
:)
– Martin von Wittich
Jan 23 '14 at 11:17
2
You can restrict ssh keys to only allowing certain commands, too. Definitely a good idea, since if you're automating something, you will probably be making these ssh keys without any passphrase, or at least so they're accessible all the time a machine is running. (meaning that root on that machine grants access to root on other machines.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:10
2
Martin's concerns regarding using sudo root are valid, but it seems they could be mitigated by specifying the exact rsync parameters in the sudoers file. According to the sudoers(5) man page on Ubuntu: "If a Cmnd has associated command line arguments, then the arguments in the Cmnd must match exactly those given by the user on the command line (or match the wildcards if there are any)." If the sudoers file specifies the exact rsync command with the exact options (including source and destination), then it seems it should be safe.
– user155566
Feb 8 '16 at 18:41
4
One consideration not brought up earlier:sshd
generally does not log which authorized key was used to connect to an account, so if you connect asbob
thensudo
, you get a better audit trail than if you connect in toroot
directly withbob
's key.
– Coderer
Jun 15 '16 at 12:44
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
77
down vote
accepted
I would recommend that you just use the root account in the first place. If you set it up like this:
- Configure your
sshd_config
on the target machine toPermitRootLogin without-password
. - Use
ssh-keygen
on the machine that pulls the backup to create an SSH private key (only if you don't already have an SSH key). Do not set a passphrase. Google a tutorial if you need details for this, there should be plenty. - Append the contents of
/root/.ssh/id_rsa.pub
of the backup machine to the/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
of your target machine. - Now your backup machine has root access to your target machine, without having to use password authentication.
then the resulting setup should be pretty safe.
sudo
, especially combined with NOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, has no security benefits over just using the root account. For example this suggestion:
add the following to your
/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
essentially gives rsyncuser
root permissions anyway. You ask:
@MartinvonWittich Easy to gain a full root shell because
rsync
executed withsudo
? Walk [m]e [through] that please.
Well, simple. With the recommended configuration, rsyncuser
may now run rsync
as root without even being asked for a password. rsync
is a very powerful tool to manipulate files, so now rsyncuser
has a very powerful tool to manipulate files with root permissions. Finding a way to exploit this took me just a few minutes (tested on Ubuntu 13.04, requires dash
, bash
didn't work):
martin@martin ~ % sudo rsync --perms --chmod u+s /bin/dash /bin/rootdash
martin@martin ~ % rootdash
# whoami
root
# touch /etc/evil
# tail -n1 /etc/shadow
dnsmasq:*:15942:0:99999:7:::
As you can see, I have created myself a root shell; whoami
identifies my account as root, I can create files in /etc
, and I can read from /etc/shadow
. My exploit was to set the setuid bit on the dash
binary; it causes Linux to always run that binary with the permissions of the owner, in this case root.
Having a real root is not [recommended] for good reasons. – redanimalwar 15 hours ago
No, clumsily working around the root account in situations where it is absolutely appropriate to use it is not for good reasons. This is just another form of cargo cult programming - you don't really understand the concept behind sudo vs root, you just blindly apply the belief "root is bad, sudo is good" because you've read that somewhere.
On the one hand, there are situations where sudo
is definitely the right tool for the job. For example, when you're interactively working on a graphical Linux desktop, let's say Ubuntu, then having to use sudo
is fine in those rare cases where you sometimes need root access. Ubuntu intentionally has a disabled root account and forces you to use sudo
by default to prevent users from just always using the root account to log in. When the user just wants to use e.g. the web browser, then logging in as root would be a dangerous thing, and therefore not having a root account by default prevents stupid people from doing this.
On the other hand, there are situations like yours, where an automated script requires root permissions to something, for example to make a backup. Now using sudo
to work around the root account is not only pointless, it's also dangerous: at first glance rsyncuser
looks like an ordinary unprivileged account. But as I've already explained, it would be very easy for an attacker to gain full root access if he had already gained rsyncuser
access. So essentially, you now have an additional root account that doesn't look like a root account at all, which is not a good thing.
2
Nice explanation. Would another reason for using sudo over root be in the situation where multiple people have sysadmin roles on a server? This way each can use their own SSH keys instead of sharing the SSH key of root?
– Nathan S. Watson-Haigh
Jan 22 '14 at 21:33
2
@NathanS.Watson-Haigh you could just as easy put all SSH keys into/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
, or even create multiple root accounts with different homes so each user can have his own shell, home and.ssh/authorized_keys
:)
– Martin von Wittich
Jan 23 '14 at 11:17
2
You can restrict ssh keys to only allowing certain commands, too. Definitely a good idea, since if you're automating something, you will probably be making these ssh keys without any passphrase, or at least so they're accessible all the time a machine is running. (meaning that root on that machine grants access to root on other machines.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:10
2
Martin's concerns regarding using sudo root are valid, but it seems they could be mitigated by specifying the exact rsync parameters in the sudoers file. According to the sudoers(5) man page on Ubuntu: "If a Cmnd has associated command line arguments, then the arguments in the Cmnd must match exactly those given by the user on the command line (or match the wildcards if there are any)." If the sudoers file specifies the exact rsync command with the exact options (including source and destination), then it seems it should be safe.
– user155566
Feb 8 '16 at 18:41
4
One consideration not brought up earlier:sshd
generally does not log which authorized key was used to connect to an account, so if you connect asbob
thensudo
, you get a better audit trail than if you connect in toroot
directly withbob
's key.
– Coderer
Jun 15 '16 at 12:44
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
77
down vote
accepted
up vote
77
down vote
accepted
I would recommend that you just use the root account in the first place. If you set it up like this:
- Configure your
sshd_config
on the target machine toPermitRootLogin without-password
. - Use
ssh-keygen
on the machine that pulls the backup to create an SSH private key (only if you don't already have an SSH key). Do not set a passphrase. Google a tutorial if you need details for this, there should be plenty. - Append the contents of
/root/.ssh/id_rsa.pub
of the backup machine to the/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
of your target machine. - Now your backup machine has root access to your target machine, without having to use password authentication.
then the resulting setup should be pretty safe.
sudo
, especially combined with NOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, has no security benefits over just using the root account. For example this suggestion:
add the following to your
/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
essentially gives rsyncuser
root permissions anyway. You ask:
@MartinvonWittich Easy to gain a full root shell because
rsync
executed withsudo
? Walk [m]e [through] that please.
Well, simple. With the recommended configuration, rsyncuser
may now run rsync
as root without even being asked for a password. rsync
is a very powerful tool to manipulate files, so now rsyncuser
has a very powerful tool to manipulate files with root permissions. Finding a way to exploit this took me just a few minutes (tested on Ubuntu 13.04, requires dash
, bash
didn't work):
martin@martin ~ % sudo rsync --perms --chmod u+s /bin/dash /bin/rootdash
martin@martin ~ % rootdash
# whoami
root
# touch /etc/evil
# tail -n1 /etc/shadow
dnsmasq:*:15942:0:99999:7:::
As you can see, I have created myself a root shell; whoami
identifies my account as root, I can create files in /etc
, and I can read from /etc/shadow
. My exploit was to set the setuid bit on the dash
binary; it causes Linux to always run that binary with the permissions of the owner, in this case root.
Having a real root is not [recommended] for good reasons. – redanimalwar 15 hours ago
No, clumsily working around the root account in situations where it is absolutely appropriate to use it is not for good reasons. This is just another form of cargo cult programming - you don't really understand the concept behind sudo vs root, you just blindly apply the belief "root is bad, sudo is good" because you've read that somewhere.
On the one hand, there are situations where sudo
is definitely the right tool for the job. For example, when you're interactively working on a graphical Linux desktop, let's say Ubuntu, then having to use sudo
is fine in those rare cases where you sometimes need root access. Ubuntu intentionally has a disabled root account and forces you to use sudo
by default to prevent users from just always using the root account to log in. When the user just wants to use e.g. the web browser, then logging in as root would be a dangerous thing, and therefore not having a root account by default prevents stupid people from doing this.
On the other hand, there are situations like yours, where an automated script requires root permissions to something, for example to make a backup. Now using sudo
to work around the root account is not only pointless, it's also dangerous: at first glance rsyncuser
looks like an ordinary unprivileged account. But as I've already explained, it would be very easy for an attacker to gain full root access if he had already gained rsyncuser
access. So essentially, you now have an additional root account that doesn't look like a root account at all, which is not a good thing.
I would recommend that you just use the root account in the first place. If you set it up like this:
- Configure your
sshd_config
on the target machine toPermitRootLogin without-password
. - Use
ssh-keygen
on the machine that pulls the backup to create an SSH private key (only if you don't already have an SSH key). Do not set a passphrase. Google a tutorial if you need details for this, there should be plenty. - Append the contents of
/root/.ssh/id_rsa.pub
of the backup machine to the/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
of your target machine. - Now your backup machine has root access to your target machine, without having to use password authentication.
then the resulting setup should be pretty safe.
sudo
, especially combined with NOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, has no security benefits over just using the root account. For example this suggestion:
add the following to your
/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
essentially gives rsyncuser
root permissions anyway. You ask:
@MartinvonWittich Easy to gain a full root shell because
rsync
executed withsudo
? Walk [m]e [through] that please.
Well, simple. With the recommended configuration, rsyncuser
may now run rsync
as root without even being asked for a password. rsync
is a very powerful tool to manipulate files, so now rsyncuser
has a very powerful tool to manipulate files with root permissions. Finding a way to exploit this took me just a few minutes (tested on Ubuntu 13.04, requires dash
, bash
didn't work):
martin@martin ~ % sudo rsync --perms --chmod u+s /bin/dash /bin/rootdash
martin@martin ~ % rootdash
# whoami
root
# touch /etc/evil
# tail -n1 /etc/shadow
dnsmasq:*:15942:0:99999:7:::
As you can see, I have created myself a root shell; whoami
identifies my account as root, I can create files in /etc
, and I can read from /etc/shadow
. My exploit was to set the setuid bit on the dash
binary; it causes Linux to always run that binary with the permissions of the owner, in this case root.
Having a real root is not [recommended] for good reasons. – redanimalwar 15 hours ago
No, clumsily working around the root account in situations where it is absolutely appropriate to use it is not for good reasons. This is just another form of cargo cult programming - you don't really understand the concept behind sudo vs root, you just blindly apply the belief "root is bad, sudo is good" because you've read that somewhere.
On the one hand, there are situations where sudo
is definitely the right tool for the job. For example, when you're interactively working on a graphical Linux desktop, let's say Ubuntu, then having to use sudo
is fine in those rare cases where you sometimes need root access. Ubuntu intentionally has a disabled root account and forces you to use sudo
by default to prevent users from just always using the root account to log in. When the user just wants to use e.g. the web browser, then logging in as root would be a dangerous thing, and therefore not having a root account by default prevents stupid people from doing this.
On the other hand, there are situations like yours, where an automated script requires root permissions to something, for example to make a backup. Now using sudo
to work around the root account is not only pointless, it's also dangerous: at first glance rsyncuser
looks like an ordinary unprivileged account. But as I've already explained, it would be very easy for an attacker to gain full root access if he had already gained rsyncuser
access. So essentially, you now have an additional root account that doesn't look like a root account at all, which is not a good thing.
edited Aug 30 '16 at 12:40
answered Sep 25 '13 at 20:54
Martin von Wittich
9,82933157
9,82933157
2
Nice explanation. Would another reason for using sudo over root be in the situation where multiple people have sysadmin roles on a server? This way each can use their own SSH keys instead of sharing the SSH key of root?
– Nathan S. Watson-Haigh
Jan 22 '14 at 21:33
2
@NathanS.Watson-Haigh you could just as easy put all SSH keys into/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
, or even create multiple root accounts with different homes so each user can have his own shell, home and.ssh/authorized_keys
:)
– Martin von Wittich
Jan 23 '14 at 11:17
2
You can restrict ssh keys to only allowing certain commands, too. Definitely a good idea, since if you're automating something, you will probably be making these ssh keys without any passphrase, or at least so they're accessible all the time a machine is running. (meaning that root on that machine grants access to root on other machines.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:10
2
Martin's concerns regarding using sudo root are valid, but it seems they could be mitigated by specifying the exact rsync parameters in the sudoers file. According to the sudoers(5) man page on Ubuntu: "If a Cmnd has associated command line arguments, then the arguments in the Cmnd must match exactly those given by the user on the command line (or match the wildcards if there are any)." If the sudoers file specifies the exact rsync command with the exact options (including source and destination), then it seems it should be safe.
– user155566
Feb 8 '16 at 18:41
4
One consideration not brought up earlier:sshd
generally does not log which authorized key was used to connect to an account, so if you connect asbob
thensudo
, you get a better audit trail than if you connect in toroot
directly withbob
's key.
– Coderer
Jun 15 '16 at 12:44
|
show 6 more comments
2
Nice explanation. Would another reason for using sudo over root be in the situation where multiple people have sysadmin roles on a server? This way each can use their own SSH keys instead of sharing the SSH key of root?
– Nathan S. Watson-Haigh
Jan 22 '14 at 21:33
2
@NathanS.Watson-Haigh you could just as easy put all SSH keys into/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
, or even create multiple root accounts with different homes so each user can have his own shell, home and.ssh/authorized_keys
:)
– Martin von Wittich
Jan 23 '14 at 11:17
2
You can restrict ssh keys to only allowing certain commands, too. Definitely a good idea, since if you're automating something, you will probably be making these ssh keys without any passphrase, or at least so they're accessible all the time a machine is running. (meaning that root on that machine grants access to root on other machines.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:10
2
Martin's concerns regarding using sudo root are valid, but it seems they could be mitigated by specifying the exact rsync parameters in the sudoers file. According to the sudoers(5) man page on Ubuntu: "If a Cmnd has associated command line arguments, then the arguments in the Cmnd must match exactly those given by the user on the command line (or match the wildcards if there are any)." If the sudoers file specifies the exact rsync command with the exact options (including source and destination), then it seems it should be safe.
– user155566
Feb 8 '16 at 18:41
4
One consideration not brought up earlier:sshd
generally does not log which authorized key was used to connect to an account, so if you connect asbob
thensudo
, you get a better audit trail than if you connect in toroot
directly withbob
's key.
– Coderer
Jun 15 '16 at 12:44
2
2
Nice explanation. Would another reason for using sudo over root be in the situation where multiple people have sysadmin roles on a server? This way each can use their own SSH keys instead of sharing the SSH key of root?
– Nathan S. Watson-Haigh
Jan 22 '14 at 21:33
Nice explanation. Would another reason for using sudo over root be in the situation where multiple people have sysadmin roles on a server? This way each can use their own SSH keys instead of sharing the SSH key of root?
– Nathan S. Watson-Haigh
Jan 22 '14 at 21:33
2
2
@NathanS.Watson-Haigh you could just as easy put all SSH keys into
/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
, or even create multiple root accounts with different homes so each user can have his own shell, home and .ssh/authorized_keys
:)– Martin von Wittich
Jan 23 '14 at 11:17
@NathanS.Watson-Haigh you could just as easy put all SSH keys into
/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
, or even create multiple root accounts with different homes so each user can have his own shell, home and .ssh/authorized_keys
:)– Martin von Wittich
Jan 23 '14 at 11:17
2
2
You can restrict ssh keys to only allowing certain commands, too. Definitely a good idea, since if you're automating something, you will probably be making these ssh keys without any passphrase, or at least so they're accessible all the time a machine is running. (meaning that root on that machine grants access to root on other machines.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:10
You can restrict ssh keys to only allowing certain commands, too. Definitely a good idea, since if you're automating something, you will probably be making these ssh keys without any passphrase, or at least so they're accessible all the time a machine is running. (meaning that root on that machine grants access to root on other machines.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:10
2
2
Martin's concerns regarding using sudo root are valid, but it seems they could be mitigated by specifying the exact rsync parameters in the sudoers file. According to the sudoers(5) man page on Ubuntu: "If a Cmnd has associated command line arguments, then the arguments in the Cmnd must match exactly those given by the user on the command line (or match the wildcards if there are any)." If the sudoers file specifies the exact rsync command with the exact options (including source and destination), then it seems it should be safe.
– user155566
Feb 8 '16 at 18:41
Martin's concerns regarding using sudo root are valid, but it seems they could be mitigated by specifying the exact rsync parameters in the sudoers file. According to the sudoers(5) man page on Ubuntu: "If a Cmnd has associated command line arguments, then the arguments in the Cmnd must match exactly those given by the user on the command line (or match the wildcards if there are any)." If the sudoers file specifies the exact rsync command with the exact options (including source and destination), then it seems it should be safe.
– user155566
Feb 8 '16 at 18:41
4
4
One consideration not brought up earlier:
sshd
generally does not log which authorized key was used to connect to an account, so if you connect as bob
then sudo
, you get a better audit trail than if you connect in to root
directly with bob
's key.– Coderer
Jun 15 '16 at 12:44
One consideration not brought up earlier:
sshd
generally does not log which authorized key was used to connect to an account, so if you connect as bob
then sudo
, you get a better audit trail than if you connect in to root
directly with bob
's key.– Coderer
Jun 15 '16 at 12:44
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
65
down vote
Make use of the --rsync-path
option to make the remote rsync
command run with sudo
privileges. Your command should then be e.g.:
rsync -chavzP --rsync-path="sudo rsync" --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ .
If sudo
prompts you for a password, you have to avoid that either by using a NOPASSWD
privilege with the remote user account (pointless for root, may make sense in other use cases), or if you don't want to do that:
Make sure that the option
tty_tickets
is disabled for the user you
are using, by running e.g.sudo visudo -f /etc/sudoers.d/local-rsync
and entering:
Defaults:your.username.for.rsync !tty_tickets
Make sure that the option
requiretty
is disabled for the user you are
using - it could be off by default. The method is the same as above.Seed the
sudo
password on the remote machine, by running e.g.
ssh -t user@192.168.1.2 sudo
1
@scai the password that is asked for is most likely thesudo
password, not thessh
password
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:15
2
@redanimalwar allows your user tosudo /usr/bin/rsync
without asking for a passphrase; checkman sudoers
for how to do this; you might want to create an extra backup user for this.
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:17
5
To allowsudo /usr/bin/rsync
to run without requiring as password add the following to your/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
This will allow the user rsyncuser (as mentioned above it would be best to create a dedicated backup user) with the username you want.
– M_dk
Sep 24 '13 at 9:38
4
@M_dk nowrsync
essentially always has root permissions; it's probably very easy to gain a full root shell in that account. I think it's better to just use the real root account in the first place.
– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:00
1
The answer in no way speaking ofecho "password" | something
I actually never used this and agree with the security problems coming with letting sudoless execution of rsync (also not suggested here) is bad. What thetty_tickets
does I have actually no idea, seems needed and a security issue. This would work securely without tweaking anything by just running sodo on ssh and then executing the command right? But since I asked that question for scriping purposes, I totally agree that key based ssh without pw is the secure and right was to do. I accepted Martins answer instead.
– redanimalwar
Mar 7 '15 at 16:47
|
show 8 more comments
up vote
65
down vote
Make use of the --rsync-path
option to make the remote rsync
command run with sudo
privileges. Your command should then be e.g.:
rsync -chavzP --rsync-path="sudo rsync" --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ .
If sudo
prompts you for a password, you have to avoid that either by using a NOPASSWD
privilege with the remote user account (pointless for root, may make sense in other use cases), or if you don't want to do that:
Make sure that the option
tty_tickets
is disabled for the user you
are using, by running e.g.sudo visudo -f /etc/sudoers.d/local-rsync
and entering:
Defaults:your.username.for.rsync !tty_tickets
Make sure that the option
requiretty
is disabled for the user you are
using - it could be off by default. The method is the same as above.Seed the
sudo
password on the remote machine, by running e.g.
ssh -t user@192.168.1.2 sudo
1
@scai the password that is asked for is most likely thesudo
password, not thessh
password
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:15
2
@redanimalwar allows your user tosudo /usr/bin/rsync
without asking for a passphrase; checkman sudoers
for how to do this; you might want to create an extra backup user for this.
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:17
5
To allowsudo /usr/bin/rsync
to run without requiring as password add the following to your/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
This will allow the user rsyncuser (as mentioned above it would be best to create a dedicated backup user) with the username you want.
– M_dk
Sep 24 '13 at 9:38
4
@M_dk nowrsync
essentially always has root permissions; it's probably very easy to gain a full root shell in that account. I think it's better to just use the real root account in the first place.
– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:00
1
The answer in no way speaking ofecho "password" | something
I actually never used this and agree with the security problems coming with letting sudoless execution of rsync (also not suggested here) is bad. What thetty_tickets
does I have actually no idea, seems needed and a security issue. This would work securely without tweaking anything by just running sodo on ssh and then executing the command right? But since I asked that question for scriping purposes, I totally agree that key based ssh without pw is the secure and right was to do. I accepted Martins answer instead.
– redanimalwar
Mar 7 '15 at 16:47
|
show 8 more comments
up vote
65
down vote
up vote
65
down vote
Make use of the --rsync-path
option to make the remote rsync
command run with sudo
privileges. Your command should then be e.g.:
rsync -chavzP --rsync-path="sudo rsync" --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ .
If sudo
prompts you for a password, you have to avoid that either by using a NOPASSWD
privilege with the remote user account (pointless for root, may make sense in other use cases), or if you don't want to do that:
Make sure that the option
tty_tickets
is disabled for the user you
are using, by running e.g.sudo visudo -f /etc/sudoers.d/local-rsync
and entering:
Defaults:your.username.for.rsync !tty_tickets
Make sure that the option
requiretty
is disabled for the user you are
using - it could be off by default. The method is the same as above.Seed the
sudo
password on the remote machine, by running e.g.
ssh -t user@192.168.1.2 sudo
Make use of the --rsync-path
option to make the remote rsync
command run with sudo
privileges. Your command should then be e.g.:
rsync -chavzP --rsync-path="sudo rsync" --stats user@192.168.1.2:/ .
If sudo
prompts you for a password, you have to avoid that either by using a NOPASSWD
privilege with the remote user account (pointless for root, may make sense in other use cases), or if you don't want to do that:
Make sure that the option
tty_tickets
is disabled for the user you
are using, by running e.g.sudo visudo -f /etc/sudoers.d/local-rsync
and entering:
Defaults:your.username.for.rsync !tty_tickets
Make sure that the option
requiretty
is disabled for the user you are
using - it could be off by default. The method is the same as above.Seed the
sudo
password on the remote machine, by running e.g.
ssh -t user@192.168.1.2 sudo
edited Nov 23 at 8:29
Josip Rodin
911412
911412
answered Sep 24 '13 at 4:00
M_dk
1,04979
1,04979
1
@scai the password that is asked for is most likely thesudo
password, not thessh
password
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:15
2
@redanimalwar allows your user tosudo /usr/bin/rsync
without asking for a passphrase; checkman sudoers
for how to do this; you might want to create an extra backup user for this.
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:17
5
To allowsudo /usr/bin/rsync
to run without requiring as password add the following to your/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
This will allow the user rsyncuser (as mentioned above it would be best to create a dedicated backup user) with the username you want.
– M_dk
Sep 24 '13 at 9:38
4
@M_dk nowrsync
essentially always has root permissions; it's probably very easy to gain a full root shell in that account. I think it's better to just use the real root account in the first place.
– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:00
1
The answer in no way speaking ofecho "password" | something
I actually never used this and agree with the security problems coming with letting sudoless execution of rsync (also not suggested here) is bad. What thetty_tickets
does I have actually no idea, seems needed and a security issue. This would work securely without tweaking anything by just running sodo on ssh and then executing the command right? But since I asked that question for scriping purposes, I totally agree that key based ssh without pw is the secure and right was to do. I accepted Martins answer instead.
– redanimalwar
Mar 7 '15 at 16:47
|
show 8 more comments
1
@scai the password that is asked for is most likely thesudo
password, not thessh
password
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:15
2
@redanimalwar allows your user tosudo /usr/bin/rsync
without asking for a passphrase; checkman sudoers
for how to do this; you might want to create an extra backup user for this.
– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:17
5
To allowsudo /usr/bin/rsync
to run without requiring as password add the following to your/etc/sudoers
file:rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
This will allow the user rsyncuser (as mentioned above it would be best to create a dedicated backup user) with the username you want.
– M_dk
Sep 24 '13 at 9:38
4
@M_dk nowrsync
essentially always has root permissions; it's probably very easy to gain a full root shell in that account. I think it's better to just use the real root account in the first place.
– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:00
1
The answer in no way speaking ofecho "password" | something
I actually never used this and agree with the security problems coming with letting sudoless execution of rsync (also not suggested here) is bad. What thetty_tickets
does I have actually no idea, seems needed and a security issue. This would work securely without tweaking anything by just running sodo on ssh and then executing the command right? But since I asked that question for scriping purposes, I totally agree that key based ssh without pw is the secure and right was to do. I accepted Martins answer instead.
– redanimalwar
Mar 7 '15 at 16:47
1
1
@scai the password that is asked for is most likely the
sudo
password, not the ssh
password– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:15
@scai the password that is asked for is most likely the
sudo
password, not the ssh
password– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:15
2
2
@redanimalwar allows your user to
sudo /usr/bin/rsync
without asking for a passphrase; check man sudoers
for how to do this; you might want to create an extra backup user for this.– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:17
@redanimalwar allows your user to
sudo /usr/bin/rsync
without asking for a passphrase; check man sudoers
for how to do this; you might want to create an extra backup user for this.– umläute
Sep 24 '13 at 8:17
5
5
To allow
sudo /usr/bin/rsync
to run without requiring as password add the following to your /etc/sudoers
file: rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
This will allow the user rsyncuser (as mentioned above it would be best to create a dedicated backup user) with the username you want.– M_dk
Sep 24 '13 at 9:38
To allow
sudo /usr/bin/rsync
to run without requiring as password add the following to your /etc/sudoers
file: rsyncuser ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
This will allow the user rsyncuser (as mentioned above it would be best to create a dedicated backup user) with the username you want.– M_dk
Sep 24 '13 at 9:38
4
4
@M_dk now
rsync
essentially always has root permissions; it's probably very easy to gain a full root shell in that account. I think it's better to just use the real root account in the first place.– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:00
@M_dk now
rsync
essentially always has root permissions; it's probably very easy to gain a full root shell in that account. I think it's better to just use the real root account in the first place.– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:00
1
1
The answer in no way speaking of
echo "password" | something
I actually never used this and agree with the security problems coming with letting sudoless execution of rsync (also not suggested here) is bad. What the tty_tickets
does I have actually no idea, seems needed and a security issue. This would work securely without tweaking anything by just running sodo on ssh and then executing the command right? But since I asked that question for scriping purposes, I totally agree that key based ssh without pw is the secure and right was to do. I accepted Martins answer instead.– redanimalwar
Mar 7 '15 at 16:47
The answer in no way speaking of
echo "password" | something
I actually never used this and agree with the security problems coming with letting sudoless execution of rsync (also not suggested here) is bad. What the tty_tickets
does I have actually no idea, seems needed and a security issue. This would work securely without tweaking anything by just running sodo on ssh and then executing the command right? But since I asked that question for scriping purposes, I totally agree that key based ssh without pw is the secure and right was to do. I accepted Martins answer instead.– redanimalwar
Mar 7 '15 at 16:47
|
show 8 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
One simple way to do this is to use the graphical ssh-askpass
program with sudo
, this gets around the fact that sudo
is not connected to the terminal and allows you to enter the password safely:
rsync -chavzPe 'ssh -X' --stats
--rsync-path='SUDO_ASKPASS=/usr/lib/ssh/x11-ssh-askpass sudo -A rsync'
user@192.168.1.2:/ .
Of course the ssh-askpass
program must be installed in the given location and you must be running an X session on the machine you are working on. There are a few variations on the ssh-askpass
program which should also work (Gnome/KDE versions). Also a graphical sudo
replacement program like gksu
or kdesudo
should also work.
rsync --rsh='ssh -X' --rsync-path='gksudo -- rsync' user@host:/ .
doesn't work.rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(1634) [server=3.1.1]
. Oh, ubuntu does ship gnome-ssh-askpass, but it's/usr/bin/ssh-askpass
, instead of/usr/lib/ssh/x11...
. So that worked :)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:05
1
This is one of the better solutions as it doesn't need any reconfiguration on the other end -- just needs the askpass installed and X forwarding enabled, both of which should be fairly common.
– David Gardner
Aug 4 '15 at 10:55
1
Works like a charm after installingssh-askpass
. I just had to look up the meaning of-chavzPe
, would be great to spell these out as long options.
– krlmlr
Oct 14 '16 at 16:19
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
One simple way to do this is to use the graphical ssh-askpass
program with sudo
, this gets around the fact that sudo
is not connected to the terminal and allows you to enter the password safely:
rsync -chavzPe 'ssh -X' --stats
--rsync-path='SUDO_ASKPASS=/usr/lib/ssh/x11-ssh-askpass sudo -A rsync'
user@192.168.1.2:/ .
Of course the ssh-askpass
program must be installed in the given location and you must be running an X session on the machine you are working on. There are a few variations on the ssh-askpass
program which should also work (Gnome/KDE versions). Also a graphical sudo
replacement program like gksu
or kdesudo
should also work.
rsync --rsh='ssh -X' --rsync-path='gksudo -- rsync' user@host:/ .
doesn't work.rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(1634) [server=3.1.1]
. Oh, ubuntu does ship gnome-ssh-askpass, but it's/usr/bin/ssh-askpass
, instead of/usr/lib/ssh/x11...
. So that worked :)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:05
1
This is one of the better solutions as it doesn't need any reconfiguration on the other end -- just needs the askpass installed and X forwarding enabled, both of which should be fairly common.
– David Gardner
Aug 4 '15 at 10:55
1
Works like a charm after installingssh-askpass
. I just had to look up the meaning of-chavzPe
, would be great to spell these out as long options.
– krlmlr
Oct 14 '16 at 16:19
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
down vote
One simple way to do this is to use the graphical ssh-askpass
program with sudo
, this gets around the fact that sudo
is not connected to the terminal and allows you to enter the password safely:
rsync -chavzPe 'ssh -X' --stats
--rsync-path='SUDO_ASKPASS=/usr/lib/ssh/x11-ssh-askpass sudo -A rsync'
user@192.168.1.2:/ .
Of course the ssh-askpass
program must be installed in the given location and you must be running an X session on the machine you are working on. There are a few variations on the ssh-askpass
program which should also work (Gnome/KDE versions). Also a graphical sudo
replacement program like gksu
or kdesudo
should also work.
One simple way to do this is to use the graphical ssh-askpass
program with sudo
, this gets around the fact that sudo
is not connected to the terminal and allows you to enter the password safely:
rsync -chavzPe 'ssh -X' --stats
--rsync-path='SUDO_ASKPASS=/usr/lib/ssh/x11-ssh-askpass sudo -A rsync'
user@192.168.1.2:/ .
Of course the ssh-askpass
program must be installed in the given location and you must be running an X session on the machine you are working on. There are a few variations on the ssh-askpass
program which should also work (Gnome/KDE versions). Also a graphical sudo
replacement program like gksu
or kdesudo
should also work.
answered Jun 19 '14 at 8:34
Graeme
24.7k46296
24.7k46296
rsync --rsh='ssh -X' --rsync-path='gksudo -- rsync' user@host:/ .
doesn't work.rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(1634) [server=3.1.1]
. Oh, ubuntu does ship gnome-ssh-askpass, but it's/usr/bin/ssh-askpass
, instead of/usr/lib/ssh/x11...
. So that worked :)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:05
1
This is one of the better solutions as it doesn't need any reconfiguration on the other end -- just needs the askpass installed and X forwarding enabled, both of which should be fairly common.
– David Gardner
Aug 4 '15 at 10:55
1
Works like a charm after installingssh-askpass
. I just had to look up the meaning of-chavzPe
, would be great to spell these out as long options.
– krlmlr
Oct 14 '16 at 16:19
add a comment |
rsync --rsh='ssh -X' --rsync-path='gksudo -- rsync' user@host:/ .
doesn't work.rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(1634) [server=3.1.1]
. Oh, ubuntu does ship gnome-ssh-askpass, but it's/usr/bin/ssh-askpass
, instead of/usr/lib/ssh/x11...
. So that worked :)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:05
1
This is one of the better solutions as it doesn't need any reconfiguration on the other end -- just needs the askpass installed and X forwarding enabled, both of which should be fairly common.
– David Gardner
Aug 4 '15 at 10:55
1
Works like a charm after installingssh-askpass
. I just had to look up the meaning of-chavzPe
, would be great to spell these out as long options.
– krlmlr
Oct 14 '16 at 16:19
rsync --rsh='ssh -X' --rsync-path='gksudo -- rsync' user@host:/ .
doesn't work. rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(1634) [server=3.1.1]
. Oh, ubuntu does ship gnome-ssh-askpass, but it's /usr/bin/ssh-askpass
, instead of /usr/lib/ssh/x11...
. So that worked :)– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:05
rsync --rsh='ssh -X' --rsync-path='gksudo -- rsync' user@host:/ .
doesn't work. rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(1634) [server=3.1.1]
. Oh, ubuntu does ship gnome-ssh-askpass, but it's /usr/bin/ssh-askpass
, instead of /usr/lib/ssh/x11...
. So that worked :)– Peter Cordes
Mar 7 '15 at 15:05
1
1
This is one of the better solutions as it doesn't need any reconfiguration on the other end -- just needs the askpass installed and X forwarding enabled, both of which should be fairly common.
– David Gardner
Aug 4 '15 at 10:55
This is one of the better solutions as it doesn't need any reconfiguration on the other end -- just needs the askpass installed and X forwarding enabled, both of which should be fairly common.
– David Gardner
Aug 4 '15 at 10:55
1
1
Works like a charm after installing
ssh-askpass
. I just had to look up the meaning of -chavzPe
, would be great to spell these out as long options.– krlmlr
Oct 14 '16 at 16:19
Works like a charm after installing
ssh-askpass
. I just had to look up the meaning of -chavzPe
, would be great to spell these out as long options.– krlmlr
Oct 14 '16 at 16:19
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
If your user has already sudo privileges which are protected with a password I would keep them as-is and only add a stanza to use rsync without a password:
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
%admin ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
If your user has already sudo privileges which are protected with a password I would keep them as-is and only add a stanza to use rsync without a password:
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
%admin ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
If your user has already sudo privileges which are protected with a password I would keep them as-is and only add a stanza to use rsync without a password:
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
%admin ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
If your user has already sudo privileges which are protected with a password I would keep them as-is and only add a stanza to use rsync without a password:
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
%admin ALL= NOPASSWD:/usr/bin/rsync
answered Jun 11 '14 at 18:39
Gunnar Thielebein
7111
7111
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
I ran into this problem today and solved it without the need for modifying configuration files or granting root-level permissions to user accounts. My particular set-up was that user A
on machine foo
had to copy all of the user directories from foo
to machine bar
in a backup
directory that user A
owned. (User A
has sudo privileges on foo
.)
The command I used is below. It was invoked by user A
in the /home
directory on foo
.
sudo rsync -avu -e "ssh -i /home/A/.ssh/id_rsa -l A" * B:/home/backup
This runs rsync as sudo so that all user directories on foo
can be accessed but it tells rsync to use ssh to access machine bar
using user A
's credentials. My needs were slightly different than the question above but this allowed me to quickly get a backup of all the user directories on a particular machine I manage without mucking with the system's configuration.
2
This is brilliant. I forgot about the-i
option tossh
. You can use--rsync-path="sudo /usr/bin/rsync"
if you have sudo on machinebar
. This then does reading asroot@foo
and writing asroot@bar
, but transferring viaA@foo
->B@bar
. Thanks!
– ctbrown
Jan 21 '16 at 18:09
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
I ran into this problem today and solved it without the need for modifying configuration files or granting root-level permissions to user accounts. My particular set-up was that user A
on machine foo
had to copy all of the user directories from foo
to machine bar
in a backup
directory that user A
owned. (User A
has sudo privileges on foo
.)
The command I used is below. It was invoked by user A
in the /home
directory on foo
.
sudo rsync -avu -e "ssh -i /home/A/.ssh/id_rsa -l A" * B:/home/backup
This runs rsync as sudo so that all user directories on foo
can be accessed but it tells rsync to use ssh to access machine bar
using user A
's credentials. My needs were slightly different than the question above but this allowed me to quickly get a backup of all the user directories on a particular machine I manage without mucking with the system's configuration.
2
This is brilliant. I forgot about the-i
option tossh
. You can use--rsync-path="sudo /usr/bin/rsync"
if you have sudo on machinebar
. This then does reading asroot@foo
and writing asroot@bar
, but transferring viaA@foo
->B@bar
. Thanks!
– ctbrown
Jan 21 '16 at 18:09
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
I ran into this problem today and solved it without the need for modifying configuration files or granting root-level permissions to user accounts. My particular set-up was that user A
on machine foo
had to copy all of the user directories from foo
to machine bar
in a backup
directory that user A
owned. (User A
has sudo privileges on foo
.)
The command I used is below. It was invoked by user A
in the /home
directory on foo
.
sudo rsync -avu -e "ssh -i /home/A/.ssh/id_rsa -l A" * B:/home/backup
This runs rsync as sudo so that all user directories on foo
can be accessed but it tells rsync to use ssh to access machine bar
using user A
's credentials. My needs were slightly different than the question above but this allowed me to quickly get a backup of all the user directories on a particular machine I manage without mucking with the system's configuration.
I ran into this problem today and solved it without the need for modifying configuration files or granting root-level permissions to user accounts. My particular set-up was that user A
on machine foo
had to copy all of the user directories from foo
to machine bar
in a backup
directory that user A
owned. (User A
has sudo privileges on foo
.)
The command I used is below. It was invoked by user A
in the /home
directory on foo
.
sudo rsync -avu -e "ssh -i /home/A/.ssh/id_rsa -l A" * B:/home/backup
This runs rsync as sudo so that all user directories on foo
can be accessed but it tells rsync to use ssh to access machine bar
using user A
's credentials. My needs were slightly different than the question above but this allowed me to quickly get a backup of all the user directories on a particular machine I manage without mucking with the system's configuration.
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:11
Ken Anderson
15112
15112
2
This is brilliant. I forgot about the-i
option tossh
. You can use--rsync-path="sudo /usr/bin/rsync"
if you have sudo on machinebar
. This then does reading asroot@foo
and writing asroot@bar
, but transferring viaA@foo
->B@bar
. Thanks!
– ctbrown
Jan 21 '16 at 18:09
add a comment |
2
This is brilliant. I forgot about the-i
option tossh
. You can use--rsync-path="sudo /usr/bin/rsync"
if you have sudo on machinebar
. This then does reading asroot@foo
and writing asroot@bar
, but transferring viaA@foo
->B@bar
. Thanks!
– ctbrown
Jan 21 '16 at 18:09
2
2
This is brilliant. I forgot about the
-i
option to ssh
. You can use --rsync-path="sudo /usr/bin/rsync"
if you have sudo on machine bar
. This then does reading as root@foo
and writing as root@bar
, but transferring via A@foo
-> B@bar
. Thanks!– ctbrown
Jan 21 '16 at 18:09
This is brilliant. I forgot about the
-i
option to ssh
. You can use --rsync-path="sudo /usr/bin/rsync"
if you have sudo on machine bar
. This then does reading as root@foo
and writing as root@bar
, but transferring via A@foo
-> B@bar
. Thanks!– ctbrown
Jan 21 '16 at 18:09
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Running rsync as daemon on the target machine allows you to do what you want.
1
I upvoted this answer, but it would be better w/ some explanation of how to get the rsynch daemon running, and how you use it w/ root access.
– Mike Lippert
Feb 9 '15 at 16:29
rsync as daemon wouldn't match this case, because rsync will drop root permissions even when started as root then not all files could be transferred.
– teissler
Apr 22 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Running rsync as daemon on the target machine allows you to do what you want.
1
I upvoted this answer, but it would be better w/ some explanation of how to get the rsynch daemon running, and how you use it w/ root access.
– Mike Lippert
Feb 9 '15 at 16:29
rsync as daemon wouldn't match this case, because rsync will drop root permissions even when started as root then not all files could be transferred.
– teissler
Apr 22 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Running rsync as daemon on the target machine allows you to do what you want.
Running rsync as daemon on the target machine allows you to do what you want.
edited Sep 9 '14 at 16:38
drs
3,29352858
3,29352858
answered Sep 9 '14 at 16:16
Konstantin
1444
1444
1
I upvoted this answer, but it would be better w/ some explanation of how to get the rsynch daemon running, and how you use it w/ root access.
– Mike Lippert
Feb 9 '15 at 16:29
rsync as daemon wouldn't match this case, because rsync will drop root permissions even when started as root then not all files could be transferred.
– teissler
Apr 22 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
1
I upvoted this answer, but it would be better w/ some explanation of how to get the rsynch daemon running, and how you use it w/ root access.
– Mike Lippert
Feb 9 '15 at 16:29
rsync as daemon wouldn't match this case, because rsync will drop root permissions even when started as root then not all files could be transferred.
– teissler
Apr 22 '16 at 7:57
1
1
I upvoted this answer, but it would be better w/ some explanation of how to get the rsynch daemon running, and how you use it w/ root access.
– Mike Lippert
Feb 9 '15 at 16:29
I upvoted this answer, but it would be better w/ some explanation of how to get the rsynch daemon running, and how you use it w/ root access.
– Mike Lippert
Feb 9 '15 at 16:29
rsync as daemon wouldn't match this case, because rsync will drop root permissions even when started as root then not all files could be transferred.
– teissler
Apr 22 '16 at 7:57
rsync as daemon wouldn't match this case, because rsync will drop root permissions even when started as root then not all files could be transferred.
– teissler
Apr 22 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
My solution is to use --rsync-path="sudo rsync"
but it ask for password, workaround:
rsync -chavzP --stats --rsync-path="echo <SUDOPASS> | sudo -Sv && sudo rsync" user@192.168.1.2:/ .
1
It usually isn't a good idea to put passwords into a command line one-liner; they become visible in the process tree, for example. I sometimes replace the actual password in this type of statement with$( cat my_password.txt )
which is slightly better, but it is usually preferred to configure the permissions on either end, and/or use SSH keys, in such a way that passwords aren't required on the CLI
– JDS
May 2 at 15:13
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
My solution is to use --rsync-path="sudo rsync"
but it ask for password, workaround:
rsync -chavzP --stats --rsync-path="echo <SUDOPASS> | sudo -Sv && sudo rsync" user@192.168.1.2:/ .
1
It usually isn't a good idea to put passwords into a command line one-liner; they become visible in the process tree, for example. I sometimes replace the actual password in this type of statement with$( cat my_password.txt )
which is slightly better, but it is usually preferred to configure the permissions on either end, and/or use SSH keys, in such a way that passwords aren't required on the CLI
– JDS
May 2 at 15:13
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
My solution is to use --rsync-path="sudo rsync"
but it ask for password, workaround:
rsync -chavzP --stats --rsync-path="echo <SUDOPASS> | sudo -Sv && sudo rsync" user@192.168.1.2:/ .
My solution is to use --rsync-path="sudo rsync"
but it ask for password, workaround:
rsync -chavzP --stats --rsync-path="echo <SUDOPASS> | sudo -Sv && sudo rsync" user@192.168.1.2:/ .
answered Dec 25 '17 at 9:29
Bulat
291
291
1
It usually isn't a good idea to put passwords into a command line one-liner; they become visible in the process tree, for example. I sometimes replace the actual password in this type of statement with$( cat my_password.txt )
which is slightly better, but it is usually preferred to configure the permissions on either end, and/or use SSH keys, in such a way that passwords aren't required on the CLI
– JDS
May 2 at 15:13
add a comment |
1
It usually isn't a good idea to put passwords into a command line one-liner; they become visible in the process tree, for example. I sometimes replace the actual password in this type of statement with$( cat my_password.txt )
which is slightly better, but it is usually preferred to configure the permissions on either end, and/or use SSH keys, in such a way that passwords aren't required on the CLI
– JDS
May 2 at 15:13
1
1
It usually isn't a good idea to put passwords into a command line one-liner; they become visible in the process tree, for example. I sometimes replace the actual password in this type of statement with
$( cat my_password.txt )
which is slightly better, but it is usually preferred to configure the permissions on either end, and/or use SSH keys, in such a way that passwords aren't required on the CLI– JDS
May 2 at 15:13
It usually isn't a good idea to put passwords into a command line one-liner; they become visible in the process tree, for example. I sometimes replace the actual password in this type of statement with
$( cat my_password.txt )
which is slightly better, but it is usually preferred to configure the permissions on either end, and/or use SSH keys, in such a way that passwords aren't required on the CLI– JDS
May 2 at 15:13
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f92123%2frsync-all-files-of-remote-machine-over-ssh-without-root-user%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Just use the
root
account in the first place.sudo
, especially combined withNOPASSWD
as recommended in the comments, doesn't really improve the security of your machine.– Martin von Wittich
Sep 24 '13 at 12:01