Re: trouble with pam

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:28:17PM -0800, David Severance wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 4:53 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps perdition is being built without PAM support. This could occur for
> > one of several reasons:
> >
> > * --disable-pam was passed as a command-line argument to ./configure
> > * Perdition was unable to find security/pam_appl.h at configure-time
> > * Perdition was unable to find the symbol pam_authenticate in libpam
> >    at configure-time.
> >
> > In all cases of the above cases something relating to pam being disabled
> > should show up in the output of ./configure.
> >
> Actually I determined what was behind this issue but haven't been quick 
> to post what happened. Perdition is compiled will all the correct 
> options and this was the same binary that was previously being used when 
> we were successfully using pam_access to limit some users. What changed 
> was we turned off "authenticate_in" in perdition because we ran into 
> problems with capacity on our Kerberos service. That was awhile back, 
> then more recently I noticed that users listed in the 
> /etc/security/access.conf that pam_access read were not being processed. 
> I had thought if the pam access rules were listed in the Account section 
> that they would still be processed since they, the pam rules, were not 
> in the Auth section. However I'm not overly versed in pam so this may be 
> a conjuring of my mind as opposed to something that is indeed a real 
> problem. I just don't know enough about pam to know for sure what the 
> proper behavior should be.

The behaviour you describe above is most likely correct.
But unfortunately perdition isn't quite that clever.
If its still a problem for you I can look into fixing it.
______________________________________________
Perdition-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.vergenet.net/listinfo/perdition-users