Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap

From: Ruslan Ermilov (ru_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 05/23/03

  • Next message: Don Lewis: "Re: possible bug fix for 82550-based fxp packet truncation problem" 
    Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:08:46 +0300
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>

    On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:45:44AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
    > Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> writes:
    > > Do you think it might be a good idea to turn all the pam configuration
    > > files to list actual providers at sufficient followed by a pam_deny:
    >
    > No. I'd rather replace "sufficient" with "binding" where appropriate.
    >
    > > > Solaris introduced the "binding" flag to try to alleviate this
    > > > problem. OpenPAM supports "binding", but does not document it
    > > > anywhere.
    > > I'm unfamiliar with this option. What's it do?
    >
    > It behaves like "sufficient" should, i.e. failure is not ignored.
    >
    You mean, _last_ failure is not ignored? 

    -- 
Ruslan Ermilov		Sysadmin and DBA,
ru@sunbay.com		Sunbay Software AG,
ru@FreeBSD.org		FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251	Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org	The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com	Enabling The Information Age

  • Next message: Don Lewis: "Re: possible bug fix for 82550-based fxp packet truncation problem"