Re: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-12 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 04:34:30PM -0500, McNutt, Justin M. wrote: > [User must have local account on server or PAM fails] > > Kick me if you don't hear back from me on this in a day or so -- I'll > > take a look at what we have in the pam_krb5 CVS repository > > and fix it if > > it isn't alr

RE: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-12 Thread McNutt, Justin M.
[User must have local account on server or PAM fails] > Kick me if you don't hear back from me on this in a day or so -- I'll > take a look at what we have in the pam_krb5 CVS repository > and fix it if > it isn't already taken care of. Okay, I just checked again using a fully-patched RedHat

Re: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-10 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 08:33:58AM -0500, McNutt, Justin M. wrote: > > PAM itself doesn't care about local vs. non-local accounts. > > If you're > > having trouble with this, you almost certainly have a module > > in your PAM > > config which you shouldn't -- such as pam_unix, which by defini

RE: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-10 Thread McNutt, Justin M.
> PAM itself doesn't care about local vs. non-local accounts. > If you're > having trouble with this, you almost certainly have a module > in your PAM > config which you shouldn't -- such as pam_unix, which by definition > requires local accounts and will give you a failure for anything else

RE: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-08 Thread McNutt, Justin M.
> "McNutt, Justin M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So my original question, slightly reworded, is "If PAM is able to > > authenticate me correctly, which it does, why does FreeRADIUS still > > return a reject unless there is a local account?" This > would seem to be > > a function of what Free

Re: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-08 Thread Steve Langasek
Justin, On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:34:39PM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: > "McNutt, Justin M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So my original question, slightly reworded, is "If PAM is able to > > authenticate me correctly, which it does, why does FreeRADIUS still > > return a reject unless there is a

Re: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-08 Thread Alan DeKok
"McNutt, Justin M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So my original question, slightly reworded, is "If PAM is able to > authenticate me correctly, which it does, why does FreeRADIUS still > return a reject unless there is a local account?" This would seem to be > a function of what FreeRADIUS reques

Re: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-08 Thread Alan DeKok
"McNutt, Justin M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PAM does username/password authentication, nothing else. > > Not so. PAM can provide several different authorization functions as > well. ... and for authentication, it does username/password (or equivalents) > I figured this one out. Fre

RE: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-08 Thread McNutt, Justin M.
> "McNutt, Justin M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > PAM does username/password authentication, nothing else. > > > > Not so. PAM can provide several different authorization > functions as > > well. > > ... and for authentication, it does username/password (or > equivalents) But RADIUS

RE: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-08 Thread McNutt, Justin M.
> "McNutt, Justin M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) FreeRADIUS refuses to authenticate any user who does > not have an = > > account on the local workstation. > > That's most likely the fault of PAM, if the user is trying to log > into the box. The user is not trying to log into the box.

Re: FreeRADIUS and PAM

2002-04-05 Thread Alan DeKok
"McNutt, Justin M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) FreeRADIUS refuses to authenticate any user who does not have an = > account on the local workstation. That's most likely the fault of PAM, if the user is trying to log into the box. PAM does username/password authentication, nothing else.