Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org> Cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kerberos integration into ports--in particular, SSH Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910211212080.42378-100000@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.991021104015.47188E-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Robert Watson wrote: > It looks like many ports still don't use PAM for authentication. This is > not something I have time to address, it's just a comment that it would be > nice if now that we have PAM, things used PAM :-). I agree. Do you have a (partial) list of ports which can support this? > Also, it's a little funky to have an /etc/auth.conf and a > /etc/pam.conf -- auth.conf seems only to affect su? /etc/auth.conf is vestigial, I think. auth_list seems to duplicate the function of /etc/pam.conf, and the commented-out auth_default line (which is no longer valid - the auth_default stuff was removed) should be replaced by a login capability. > The real gist of my email is that I'd like to see the K4 patches > incorporated into the SSH port when the user has K4 enabled into > /etc/make.conf, or if they give a particular command line argument. The > SSH K4 patches (with AFS, etc) are found at: Did you suggest this to the maintainer (torstenb@FreeBSD.org)? Seems like it can't hurt. Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9910211212080.42378-100000>