Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap

Ruslan Ermilov <ru_at_FreeBSD.org> writes:
> Why pam_nologin in the "auth" chain of the "login" service is marked
> "required" and not "requisite", and why do we have the "required" at
> all?  What's the point in continuing with the chain if we are going
> to return the failure anyway?  What's the real application of
> "required" as compared to "requisite"?

Information leak.  The applicant screwed up, but we don't want to let
him know that until he's jumped through all the *other* hoops as well;
otherwise he might learn something about our authentication setup from
the premature error message.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des_at_ofug.org