[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bigger annoyance with locking.
From: |
Trent W. Buck |
Subject: |
Re: Bigger annoyance with locking. |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:43:13 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:04:25PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>> It asks for *both* the login password and the screen session
>> password.
>
> Yes, and the point is: I don't have a login password, so upon
> "locking" I am given the opportunity to create one, which has no
> persistent form of storage?
That sounds like Screen is not compatible with whatever Kerberos stuff
you're using.
> Are you trying this with a "*"'d account, which is usable in
> situations such as:
I have tested this on systems using null passwords, local md5
passwords, and NIS passwords. I have not tested this on a system
using Kerberos for user accounts.
> #ifndef USE_PAM
> [...] I should note that that block is only in use if you're *not*
> using pam, which I guess is how the BSD port builds things.
All my systems use PAM.
> If you're not seeing the above behavior, you probably have screen
> compiled with PAM support -- which from your pov likely means your
> "unlock" password's being passed through that stack.
Agreed.
> If the pam support had been tested at all on this distro -- even from
> what Micah said previously: "I would support extending screen's builtin
> lock to support PAM" -- led me to believe screen was pam-unaware until I
> just now looked at the code.
Probably Micah hasn't had to look at that part of the code yet.
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., (continued)
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Trent W. Buck, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Micah Cowan, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Trent W. Buck, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Trent W. Buck, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking.,
Trent W. Buck <=
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Trent W. Buck, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/13
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/14
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Andrew Deason, 2008/11/16
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/16
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Dan Mahoney, System Admin, 2008/11/20
- Re: Bigger annoyance with locking., Trent W. Buck, 2008/11/13