On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Jeff Noxon wrote: > > > pppd[24325]: pppd 2.3.2 started by LOGIN, uid 0 > > [...] > > > pppd[24325]: rcvd [PAP AuthReq id=0x1 user="pierre" password="<censored>"] > > > pppd[24325]: PAP authentication failure for pierre > > > pppd[24325]: sent [PAP AuthNak id=0x1 "Login incorrect"] > > > pppd[24325]: sent [LCP TermReq id=0x2 "Authentication failed"] > > > > Still no luck, but I started to suspect something about PAM... 2.2.0f did > > not use PAM, 2.3.2 seems to do so.... any ideas? > > I've tried with and without PAM (by not using the ppp-pam package). > It made no difference.
So did I. But I still remember when last time tried the new upstream version (2.3.xx) and this PAP auth from passwd NEVER EVER worked. And I tell you... I downgraded AGAIN to 2.2.0f and the problem disappeared again, now it works. But I badly need to upgrade somehow since 2.2.0f is compiled against libc5 and this screws up wtmp no matter what wrapper is installed... :-x > I've also tried to permit wildcard passwords, hardcoded passwords, etc. > It does not appear to be related to PAM or password files, because it > is not getting that far. Well, true, since I did it as well. No PAM success. > I never tried this with 2.2.0f. It's in Bo.... original... > I tried to RTFM, but TFM didn't have much information. :-) The HOWTO was > not helpful either. No, I doubt it's config error, since downgrading make it work and upgrading make it stop. Ouch. > Peter, have you asked the linux-ppp mailing list about this? No, since I'm not familiar with that list... if you can, ask them, too... cya peter -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
