## Using `AuthUserFile`s

The FTP protocol is old, stemming from the days of Telnet, before security came to be the relevant issue it is today. One of the protocol's biggest flaws, in today's security-conscious world, is the transmission of passwords "in the clear", unencrypted, easily visible to network sniffers. There are several ways of attempting to deal with this flaw.

ProFTPD allows for the definition of "virtual" users: users who do not have accounts on the host machine, whose account information is defined in other sources. The passwords for these users are then specific only to FTP access, and thus do not expose shell access (`ssh`, hopefully) to unauthorized users. These alternative account information sources include SQL tables (via `mod_sql`), LDAP servers (via `mod_ldap`), CDB files (via `mod_auth_cdb`), and other system files (via the `AuthUserFile` and `AuthGroupFile` configuration directives). The `proftpd` server can be configured to use multiple account information sources simultaneously as well, allowing for flexible support of a range of environments.

This document focuses on the use of the `AuthUserFile` and `AuthGroupFile` directives. Several questions often arise about the use of these directives. In general, the answers to those questions apply to other authentication/account sources, too.

Formats
Any configured `AuthUserFile` is used in addition to `/etc/passwd`, not instead of it (prior to 1.2.8rc1, however, an `AuthUserFile` was used instead of `/etc/passwd`); similarly for `AuthGroupFile` and `/etc/group`. The `AuthOrder` directive can be used if you want `proftpd` to use only the `AuthUserFile`. The format of an `AuthUserFile` is the same as `/etc/passwd` (`man passwd(5)`), and the format of an `AuthGroupFile` is the same as `/etc/group` (`man group(5)`). There is an `ftpasswd` script available that can be used to create and update these files.

It is important to note here that not all flavors of Unix use these formats; one notable exception is FreeBSD. With FreeBSD, user account information is stored in binary database files as opposed to ASCII files. The C library on this platform also lacks the functions necessary for making the `AuthUserFile` and `AuthGroupFile` directives work properly. In this case, `proftpd` uses an internal implementation of the missing functions to read `AuthUserFile`s and `AuthGroupFile`s. This internal implementation requires that `AuthUserFile`s have the traditional `passwd(5)` format:

      username:password:uid:gid:gecos:homedir:shell

and that `AuthGroupFile`s have this format:

      groupname:grouppasswd:gid:member1,member2,...memberN

The `ftpasswd` script mentioned creates files in these required formats.

Choice of IDs
The choice of IDs for your users is important; the operating system does not deal with user processes in terms of their user names, it knows only of the numeric identity of a process. In general, it is best if each user has a unique positive user ID (negative IDs are an ugly hack, and `proftpd` will complain if they are used).

However, in some mass-hosting environments such as ISPs, the number of users is greater than the number of IDs available. In these cases, you can give each user the same ID; additional steps should then be taken to make sure that each user is isolated from affecting other users' files. These additional steps are to make sure each user has a unique home directory, and then to restrict each user to their respective home directories by having

      DefaultRoot ~

in your `proftpd.conf`.

Shadow passwords
There really is no need for an `AuthShadowFile` directive. The purpose of a shadow file is separate sensitive information (e.g. passwords) from other account information (username/`UID`/`GID`, etc). Programs like `/bin/ls` often reference the passwd file in order to display user/group names rather than numbers; these programs do not really need that sensitive information. Rather than relying on programs like `/bin/ls` to ignore the sensitive information, libraries were developed to split the information into `/etc/passwd`, `/etc/shadow` (and similarly for `/etc/group`, but very few administrators use group passwords anymore). Some operating systems, most notably FreeBSD, though, chose a different form of information separation. Since FreeBSD maintains account information in binary database files, the shadow libraries mentioned above are not used. Instead, FreeBSD returns the sensitive information to the calling program only if it has sufficient (i.e. superuser) privileges.

When `proftpd` uses an `AuthUserFile`, it is looking for all of the account information, including the password. And since `AuthUserFile`s are specific to `proftpd`, there is no need to split any passwords out of an `AuthUserFile` into an `AuthShadowFile`. As the documentation states, an `AuthUserFile` need not reside inside a `chroot()` filesystem, which means that users can be effectively isolated from having access to that `AuthUserFile`. At that point, the only consideration is making sure that the permissions on the `AuthUserFile` are sufficient for the server to have access, but no other users.

Permissions
As the `AuthUserFile` and `AuthGroupFile` files are meant to be drop-in replacements for their system cousins, there are a few caveats. `/etc/passwd` and `/etc/group` are normally world-readable on modern Unix systems. This allows programs like `/bin/ls` to map system ID numbers to more legible names; sensitive information in the `/etc/passwd` and `/etc/group` is normally stored elsewhere, in restricted shadow files. The `proftpd` server thus assumes that it will not need special privileges to read an `AuthUserFile` or an `AuthGroupFile`. The process will access any `AuthUserFile`s and `AuthGroupFile`s with the credentials of the user and group configured via the `User` and `Group` directives. The files may contain sensitive information, so they should not have as open of permissions as `/etc/passwd` and `/etc/group`. The most paranoid setting will have user-read-only permissions for those files, and have the files be owned by the user configured for the relevant server via the `User` directive. Hopefully the server administrator has created a new account on the system just for the ftpd daemon.

ID-to-name mapping
A consequence of which to be aware when using an `AuthUserFile` is the difference between that `AuthUserFile`'s mapping of system IDs to names, and the mapping in `/etc/passwd`. This may catch some system administrators unawares when they go to check the ownership of files uploaded by some user whose account is defined in an `AuthUserFile`, and find those files being reported as being owned by different users and/or groups by `/bin/ls`. Keep in mind that `/bin/ls` is using `/etc/passwd`, not the `AuthUserFile`. This issue crops up with any alternative account information source, not just `AuthUserFile`s.

If you are using the same UID/GID for your users, e.g. in a mass hosting environment, one trick you might like to do is make all of the files, as listed by the server, appear to be owned by the logged in user. This is done using the `DirFakeUser` and `DirFakeGroup` directives, like this:

      # make listed files appear to be owned by the logged-in user
      DirFakeUser on ~
      DirFakeGroup on ~

As noted in the documentation, these directives are purely cosmetic, and in no way change the real ownership of files. This may cause some confusion on the client side in some cases, if the user sees a file that is reported to be owned by them, and the permissions on the file show user access is allowed, and yet the client is unable to access the file. `HideNoAccess` can help in situations like this.