Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 12:58:53 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Sean Bruno <sbruno@freebsd.org>, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How to update or should we update Kerberos Message-ID: <YTOPR0101MB095376A67E0BBB4A2961F4BBDD6D0@YTOPR0101MB0953.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <8e9fa53a-7455-d408-501e-461f40d44a3a@freebsd.org> References: <201805290234.w4T2YZH9003991@slippy.cwsent.com>, <8e9fa53a-7455-d408-501e-461f40d44a3a@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sean Bruno wrote: [stuff snipped] >Heh, yeah, I asked this question *wrong*. I know how we use it in the >cluster. :-) > >I mean to ask, "why aren't we using ports for kerberos?" What purpose >does it serve in the base system? Although I have no idea how many use it, both the NFS client and server can= do Kerberized mounts. I haven't tried, but it probably needs some bits to buil= d it and if you move it to ports, there would be duplicates (and the opportunity= to have one change without the other introducing a hard to find bug). Also, I'd argue that security technology like this is pretty "core". I am mainly referring to the libraries and client side stuff and not the KD= C. rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTOPR0101MB095376A67E0BBB4A2961F4BBDD6D0>