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

Re: secure rpc secret keys



Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> I'm working on the NIS+ support for Linux. Now I have a problem:

Excellent! (the first bit and not the problem ;)

> The next problem: pwdb doesn't support NIS+ in the moment, so I
> have to use the auth_unix* modules. Are there any reasons, why the
> HAVE_SHADOW define is commented out ? Without shadow support, this
> will not work with NIS+.

I'm pretty sure this is all of the problem.  The NIS support in pwdb is not
complete (cannot update passwords), so enhancing NIS for pwdb is the way to
go...  Cristian has an alpha source for a "pluggable" pwdb that is probably
the place to add such support, but the NIS code is pretty much the same so
I'm sure that anything you add to the current stable version can be easily
integrated later.

I think the shadow support in pam_unix works, the module is just growing
moss since it doesn't have all of the features that pwdb got and promises.
I'd be really pleased to see pwdb with better NIS(+) support though. 
Hopefully that would just silently add support to pam_pwdb... Interested in
doing this?

Cheers

Andrew
-- 
               Linux-PAM, libpwdb, Orange-Linux and Linux-GSS
                  http://parc.power.net/morgan/index.html



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