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

Re: Old Authtok when changing passwords

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Indeed, it's not very pretty to try to save the password from the
> conversation function, but it is a workaround, and it is portable.

Surely, one could modify the pam_unix module to do this too..? (You
could make it selectable with a module argument and cache the password
in a pam_[gs]et_data() item.)

> Just save all the no echo prompts' returns and try each in succession
> as the old authtok till pam_chauthtok() succeeds or all of those tokens
> fail.

[Please, no more hacks in the conversation function!]

> But yes, I too have been mystified by a few silly things in PAM:
>  - Why not allow the app to save the authtok? After all it has done the
>    prompting, so it oissesse the authtoks, just not in a convenient way

In the grand scheme of things, PAM was supposed to remove the need for
applications to know about passwords at all. Not allowing apps to
get/set them from PAM was a design decision - all this info was supposed
to be something that a module managed.

Reality is that some applications have very bad legacy problems -
authentication hardwired into their communication protocol etc., but
login is not one of them.

>  - Why not allow pam_authenticate() to return PAM_NEWAUTHOTK_REQD? This
>    can't be changed backwards compatibly now without also adding a new
>    API by which an app may indicate to PAM which version of PAM it
>    supports.

I guess its not clear to me why the existing account management stuff
isn't good enough for this?



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