[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bigger annoyance with locking.

From: Dan Mahoney, System Admin
Subject: Re: Bigger annoyance with locking.
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:33:18 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Andrew Deason wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:41:02 -0500 (EST)
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<address@hidden> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:

Do you dispute this?  Can you provide a concise explanation of why
PAM is not sufficient?

Concise: Because not all systems have PAM, and some of those lack
standard getpw* interface to get the encrypted password.  Heck, in
some there IS no password.

Detailed:  Kerberos and ssh-keys are two such examples.  I am sure
there's at least one or two others, obscure though they may be.

Erm, this is confusing. Are you providing Kerberos as an example where
PAM is not sufficient? Because PAM works very well with Kerberos.

Did my explanation make sense, there? Or am I just doing the mailing-list equivalent of spewing blue smoke indicative of an oil-leak somewhere in my engine block?



--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie,  Sysadmin,  WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144   AIM: LarpGM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]