Fix undefined User_Alias HIPAA_ACTOR in sudoers #6403
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds the missing User_Alias HIPAA_ACTOR to
/etc/sudoers.d/cchq
. Visudo warns about this:This refers to line 23:
Which implies that a
User_alias HIPAA_ACTOR
has been defined, however there is none such and so this line has no effect.1There is little practical impact because
{{ cchq_user }}
, the intendedHIPAA_ACTOR
, is a member ofHIPAA_USERS
, who have nearly the same privileges, and additionally there is this line:Which presumably was put there as a workaround when
HIPAA_ACTOR
failed to grant the desired privileges - precisely because it was not defined.So, this patch does two things:
HIPAA_ACTOR
as the intended{{ cchq_user }}
{{ cchq_user }}
by the intendedHIPAA_ACTOR
aliasFootnotes
The
Runas_Alias
by the same name is in a separate "namespace", and can't be mistaken for a User_Alias: it only occurs between parentheses, whereas User_Alias is the leftmost token of a rule. Even so,sudoers(5)
advises against using the same name (to avoid confusion) though in this case it makes sense, as the intention clearly is that the Runas and User aliases have the same member(s). ↩