On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:56:24PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:42:48PM -0500, Bob Willcox wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:20:51PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:57:39PM -0600, Samuel Chow wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, is there a way to completely disable PAM on a system? > > > > > > > > I was looking at it a couple months back. There is > > > > the NOPAM compiler flag. Unfortunately, telnet and > > > > ssh does not obey it. I have some untested patch > > > > at home before I got too busy with other non-FreeBSD > > > > things. > > > > > > PAM is considered to be an integral part of the system thesedays; as > > > such there's no support for compiling without it. > > > > Too bad. I find it to be rather painful to understand and configure, and > > overkill for most of uses. > > Well, the point is that the default configuration is supposed to be > exactly equivalent to the old non-PAM behaviour, so you shouldn't have > to touch *anything* unless you want to change this behaviour (which > would have required code changes in the non-PAM case).
I have to admit, that recently (last year or so) this seems to be the case. It wasn't always that way, though. As I recall, rlogin didn't work w/o modifying the PAM configuration file for quite some time. I still contend that, for the PAM challenged, the description of the configuration file is a tough read. Bob > > Kris -- Bob Willcox We seem to have forgotten the simple truth that [EMAIL PROTECTED] reason is never perfect. Only non-sense attains Austin, TX perfection. -- Poul Henningsen [1894-1967] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
