Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap
From: Ruslan Ermilov (ru_at_FreeBSD.org)
Date: 05/23/03
- Previous message: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- In reply to: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Next in thread: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Reply: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 22:49:09 +0300 To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:41:09PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > Why pam_nologin in the "auth" chain of the "login" service is marked
> > "required" and not "requisite", and why do we have the "required" at
> > all? What's the point in continuing with the chain if we are going
> > to return the failure anyway? What's the real application of
> > "required" as compared to "requisite"?
>
> Information leak. The applicant screwed up, but we don't want to let
> him know that until he's jumped through all the *other* hoops as well;
> otherwise he might learn something about our authentication setup from
> the premature error message.
>
Works for the generic case, but not for this particular example.
Just run "shutdown -k now" locally, and watch how funny the login
session looks. I don't think we're leaking something here. ;)
Hm, or maybe this is just the problem with pam_nologin(8) not
respecting the "no_warn" option?
Cheers,
-- 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
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- In reply to: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Next in thread: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Reply: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|