.`sudo` rebased to 1.8.29-3.el8
`sudo` packages have been upgraded to upstream version 1.8.29-3, which provides a number of bug fixes and enhancements over the previous version. The major changes introduced by the new version are:
* `sudo` now writes Pluggable Authentication Module (PAM) messages to the user's terminal, if available, instead of the standard output or standard error output. This prevents possible confusion of PAM output and command output sent to files and pipes.
* The `notBefore` and `notAfter` options from LDAP and SSSD now work and display correctly with the `sudo -l` command.
* The `cvtsudoers` command now rejects non-LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) input when converting from LDIF to `sudoers` and JSON formats.
* With the new `log_allowed` and `log_denied` settings for `sudoers`, you can disable logging and auditing of allowed and denied commands.
* You can now use `sudo` with the `-g` option to specify a group that matches any of the target user’s groups even if no groups are present in the `runas_spec` specification. Previously, you could only do so if the group matched the target user’s primary group.
* Fixed a bug that prevented `sudo` from matching the host name to the value of `ipa_hostname` from `sssd.conf`, if specified.
* A vulnerability that allowed a `sudo` user to run a command as root when the `Runas` specification disallowed `root` access with the `ALL` keyword is now fixed (CVE-2019-14287).
* The use of unknown user and group IDs for permissive `sudoers` entries, for example using the ALL keyword, is now disabled. You can enable it with the `runas_allow_unknown_id` setting (CVE-2019-19232).
I'd like to add that we have a customer who has a specific need that will be addressed by this. In particular, from the release notes upstream, in the section "Major changes between version 1.8.26 and 1.8.25p1" there is a line:
--->8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8---
Fixed a bug in the sudoers LDAP back-end parsing the command_timeout, role, type, privs and limitprivs sudoOptions. This also affected cvtsudoers conversion from LDIF to sudoers or JSON.
--->8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8---
which the customer seems to be indicating is their primary issue. The upstream maintainer told me that https://www.sudo.ws/repos/sudo/rev/10f8cff7cce7 was the change that addressed that particular problem.
I can submit a separate BZ just for that issue, however the customer seems to prefer a rebase anyway. The customer has already downloaded the latest source (1.8.27 as of this writing), built it, and tested it themselves, and reports this does seem to fix their issue.
Let me know if I should file a separate BZ to just get that one patch backported instead of attaching to this BZ.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:1804
I'd like to add that we have a customer who has a specific need that will be addressed by this. In particular, from the release notes upstream, in the section "Major changes between version 1.8.26 and 1.8.25p1" there is a line: --->8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8--- Fixed a bug in the sudoers LDAP back-end parsing the command_timeout, role, type, privs and limitprivs sudoOptions. This also affected cvtsudoers conversion from LDIF to sudoers or JSON. --->8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8------>8--- which the customer seems to be indicating is their primary issue. The upstream maintainer told me that https://www.sudo.ws/repos/sudo/rev/10f8cff7cce7 was the change that addressed that particular problem. I can submit a separate BZ just for that issue, however the customer seems to prefer a rebase anyway. The customer has already downloaded the latest source (1.8.27 as of this writing), built it, and tested it themselves, and reports this does seem to fix their issue. Let me know if I should file a separate BZ to just get that one patch backported instead of attaching to this BZ.