Re: Bigger annoyance with locking.

[Dan Mahoney, System Admin]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Andrew Deason wrote:

> 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.

Did my explanation make sense, there?  Or am I just doing the mailing-list 
equivalent of spewing blue smoke indicative of an oil-leak somewhere in my 
engine block?

-Dan

--

--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie,  Sysadmin,  WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144   AIM: LarpGM
Site:  http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------