Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap

From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des_at_ofug.org>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 01:45:44 +0200
Gordon Tetlow <gordont_at_gnf.org> writes:
> Do you think it might be a good idea to turn all the pam configuration
> files to list actual providers at sufficient followed by a pam_deny:

No.  I'd rather replace "sufficient" with "binding" where appropriate.

> > Solaris introduced the "binding" flag to try to alleviate this
> > problem.  OpenPAM supports "binding", but does not document it
> > anywhere.
> I'm unfamiliar with this option. What's it do?

It behaves like "sufficient" should, i.e. failure is not ignored.  I'm
working on updating the documentation.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des_at_ofug.org
Received on Thu May 22 2003 - 14:45:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:09 UTC