* Jason Frisvold <[email protected]> [2009-03-04 11:12]: > Holger Weiss wrote: > > What's the check_radius command line you're using and how does your > > radiusclient.conf look like? > > With check_radius, I had used a configuration almost identical to what > you had (of course, addresses and secrets were different) ... I've run > across an old message mentioning that running check_radius as root made > it work..
It works just fine for me without root privileges. Is the radiusclient configuration (including the "servers" file) readable for the user executing check_radius? > However, while I can get it to remotely contact the server if I run it > as root, I still get an Auth failed error. I have, again, double > checked secrets and made sure that the nagios server is in the > clients.conf file properly. > > And so now I have multiple radius clients that cannot seem to get the > secret correct, yet radtest works flawlessly. > > Could this possibly be a 64-bit issue? These servers are x86_64 RHEL5 > servers.. Maybe that's a problem? Yes, there are issues with radiusclient on 64-bit systems. However, it should work with radiusclient-ng[*], or with the following patch against radiusclient (included with Debian's libradius1 0.3.2-9): http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=321229 Holger [*] http://developer.berlios.de/projects/radiusclient-ng/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Nagios-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users ::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. ::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null
