Re: Bigger annoyance with locking.

[Andrew Deason]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:41:02 -0500 (EST)
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> 
> > Do you dispute this?  Can you provide a concise explanation of why
> > PAM is not sufficient?
> 
> Concise: Because not all systems have PAM, and some of those lack
> standard getpw* interface to get the encrypted password.  Heck, in
> some there IS no password.
> 
> Detailed:  Kerberos and ssh-keys are two such examples.  I am sure
> there's at least one or two others, obscure though they may be.

Erm, this is confusing. Are you providing Kerberos as an example where
PAM is not sufficient? Because PAM works very well with Kerberos.

Unless you mean you're trying to authenticate with already-existing
Kerberos tickets without supplying a password, but that seems silly.

-- 
Andrew Deason
address@hidden