On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 17:21, Hannes Beinert <address@hidden>
In the second case, however, the sysadmin wants to enhance
system security by requiring PPP usage. If the user completely breaks
PPP for him/herself, then it's true that system security will be
enhanced because logins for that user would be disabled. OTOH, if the
user modifies the state files to use poor sequence keys (by whatever
definition you choose to apply), or rolls back the counter for the
"current passcode" which would enable a replay attack, the user has
actually lessened system security. By keeping the files in a global
system-controlled database this latter vulnerability could be
That makes sense. OTOH, if a user wants to intentionally compromise the security of his login, he can anyway by a number of easier means. I'm not opposed to a central database, I just think that ad-hoc should be the default.
It has been discussed that the state files could be kept in the user's
directory hierarchy, but be cryptographically signed with a private
key known only to the system. This obviously also has
vulnerabilities, in addition to introducing the headache of doing a
And that'd also be vulnerable to replay attacks with the signatures, unless again something was kept in a global database.
Apologies for currently being unable to contribute any code. I'm in the process of learning C and do not yet feel that I'd be able to contribute anything robust or useful at this time.