On Wed Nov 22 2000 at 22:46, Tony Nugent wrote:
> Essentially, this is a question about pam.
... and I really didn't get much of a response last week to the
actual questions I was asking :-(
(Is there a better place to ask questions about pam?)
Background:
> Not long ago I posted a message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Another: When it is, can we get rid of PAM?
> They both serve completely different purposes.
Please clarify
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel
John Summerfield said once upon a time (Thu, 23 Nov 2000):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > You are describing ACLs. The ACL patch for the Linux is well
> > maintained.
>
> > Go crazy
>
> > http://acl.bestbits.at/
>
> Good to see, I'm looking at it now.
>
> A question: How soon is this going to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> You are describing ACLs. The ACL patch for the Linux is well
> maintained.
> Go crazy
> http://acl.bestbits.at/
Good to see, I'm looking at it now.
A question: How soon is this going to be incorporated?
Another: When it is, can we get rid of PAM?
John Summerfield said once upon a time (Thu, 23 Nov 2000):
> A better system (and it's been around for 20 years or so that I know of)
> requires no changes to programs to secure them; the can even be on public view.
>
> The security manager would issue a command that goes something like this:
> g
> Essentially, this is a question about pam.
>
> Not long ago I posted a message here asking if it was possible to set
> things up so that besides root, only one other particular user is made
> able to run /usr/sbin/pppd without the use of a password. I did not
> want to make pppd suid or be for
Essentially, this is a question about pam.
Not long ago I posted a message here asking if it was possible to set
things up so that besides root, only one other particular user is made
able to run /usr/sbin/pppd without the use of a password. I did not
want to make pppd suid or be forced to do it
