Well, what will you substitute?
You can run without authentication those things capable of running without
authentication by
starting
LILO Boot: linux 1
You might want to drag stuff over to runlevel 1 with the Sys V editor and
see what will work.
Windows 9x is set up to run with bolt-on authentication, and it has many
applications written by Microsoft that *depend* on access to the core
operating system. You have seen the results, I imagine. A new exploit
every few days, and $7.6 BILLION in the first 6 months of 1999, attributable
to the use of those exploits, in business losses. Running Windows 9x
connected to the internet is just *begging* to be cracked.
But, just as Office 97 is bound to the Windows Op systems very tightly, so
is PAM to Linux. If you have other authentication modules to substitute,
the source code is available to hook 'em in in place of PAM, and I suppose
you could recompile with PAM excluded as well. Might be a task of large
proportions to find and eradicate the whole set of hooks.
And if you did, something like the bliss virus would be far more capable
against your system than it is now.
I apologize for the previous boisterous response to your inquiry, but I
really want you to know PAM is there for a reason, and is looked for by many
services, resources, processes, etc.
So the effect of eliminating PAM would be either that you are denied access
to many things completely or that you have little or no protection from
.... anyone you might be connected to.
Civileme
Justin Fisher wrote:
> how do i uninstall the PAM package the best way? anyone ever tried to do
> this? Anyone a really big fan of pam... i personally think its a huge
> waste and i dont like it at all.
>
> Justin Fisher: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
visit http://homepages.msn.com/invalid_url ....
Is Microsoft afraid to pay itself license fees for IIS?
Sure looks like an Apache (open-source) Signature to me
