Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap

From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:08:46 +0300
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:45:44AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> 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.
> 
You mean, _last_ failure is not ignored?

-- 
Ruslan Ermilov		Sysadmin and DBA,
ru_at_sunbay.com		Sunbay Software AG,
ru_at_FreeBSD.org		FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251	Simferopol, Ukraine

http://www.FreeBSD.org	The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com	Enabling The Information Age

Received on Thu May 22 2003 - 21:09:25 UTC

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