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

Re: pam_opie module

> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:05:49 -0400 (EDT), Derrick J Brashear wrote: 
>>>  To get this to work would take restructuring wu-ftpd's parser.  We tried
>>>  several hacks and couldn't get anything working.  Anyone up to a major
>>>  hack session on wu-ftpd?  Will you support your modifications when they
>>>  break?  :-)
>>I'm considering doing it. I figure I already support enough damn mods for
>>Kerberos and AFS right now anyhow. Sigh.
>>What sort of things need to be done?
> If someone was really cool, I'd much rather see xdm hacked to support 
> the OPIE transaction.

	If I understand it correctly the whole point of PAM is 
	to avoid having to "hack" each authentication client
	(login, xdm, popd, ftpd, etc) for each authentication
	method (DES, shadow, pwdb, MD5, big-DES, Kerberos, OPIE,
	NIS and NIS+, and as yet unknown (custom auth via query
	to an SQL db?)).

	So, if we get xdm working properly with PAM than any 
	new authentication scheme that is implemented in PAM
	(SecurID, fingerprint readers, whatever!) should then
	work with xdm with no further coding.

	Am I right -- or suffering from a severe misunderstanding 
	about the whole poing of PAM/XSSO?

	While I'm asking -- what is the relationship between XSSO and
	PAM?  Is XSSO just the IETF name for PAM?

Jim Dennis  (800) 938-4078		consulting@starshine.org
Proprietor, Starshine Technical Services:  http://www.starshine.org
        PGP  1024/2ABF03B1 Jim Dennis <jim@starshine.org>
        Key fingerprint =  2524E3FEF0922A84  A27BDEDB38EBB95A 

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