From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 17 17:47:30 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C084237B8F2; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:47:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26371; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:15:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:15:43 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: current@FreeBSD.org Cc: Mark Murray , committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Crypto progress! (And a Biiiig TODO list) Message-ID: <20000217181543.G21720@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200002172130.XAA23664@gratis.grondar.za> <200002180127.UAA83711@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200002180127.UAA83711@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 08:27:23PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Garrett Wollman [000217 17:55] wrote: > < said: > > > o I want to completely dekerberise userland, and only have kerberos > > via PAMs. A ton of work, and I have just started with this. > > Huh? PAM is Pluggable Authentication Modules, not Pluggable Protocol > Modules.... It's unlikely that `rlogin' (for example) could be made > to work this way. (Of course, Kerberized `rlogin' is currently broken > already, and has been for months, so perhaps I'm the only person left > who cares.) > > > o A daemon that userland can query for password checking; this is to > > get around the current requirement that things that need master.passwd > > access need to be suid root. It works, but needs tidying up, review > > and a PAM to query it. Not far to go! > > I'm very uncomfortable with requiring Yet Another Daemon to manage > (and screw up) password checking. Generally speaking, if I wouldn't > trust a program with root privileges, I wouldn't trust it with my > password, either (for obvious reasons). Yes, but the benifits of a correct implementation are quite awesome, a centralized logging place to dole out authentication and potentially administratively shutdown/lockout accounts if a brute force attempt (or other abuse) is detected. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message