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

Re: non-interactive authentications...



Derrick J Brashear <shadow@DEMENTIA.ORG> wrote:
> The big problem is this is (of course) not PAM. It means that apps
> written to this will require your pluggable authentication library
> and no longer be able to take advantage of what commercial OS vendors
> ship. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I just feel that trying to
> make PAM be this screws over those of us already using PAM to plug
> modules into a vendor's software.... suddenly instead of having "one
> source" I can build for several platforms there's your PAM, Sun's PAM,
> HP's PAM, etc..
>
> It wouldn't be so bad if you wanted a "PAM wrapper" API, which still
> had the same module interface, but of course that sacrifices most of
> what you're trying to accomplish:-(

Let's grant that a "PAM wrapper" API, perhaps supplied by those of you
who are already using PAM to plug modules into a vendor's software, is
an option.  An option which would require a bit of engineering, but 
not unworkable.

Are you then implying that there's some better option?

-- 
Raul



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