On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:24:54AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > That is not a reason to not include it. The technical reason I state > is that it provides a mechanism to enforce strong passwords on the > system. This is the *technical* reason I'm standing for.
No, you are standing for a feature. Technically, the base system continues to work just fine. There is no technical correctness to inclusion or exclusion. It is an opinion and a choice. Which would be good hint material. <--- Hint, hint. ;) > I'm sorry. What keeps users from setting their passwords to "password"? What users? Me? They are servers. I set all the passwords based on using 12 randomly selected alpha-numerics plus ,./[]\'[EMAIL PROTECTED]&*()-=. I don't think cracklib would find fault in that. ;) <feeble attempt at humor> And then I write the password down on a post-it note and stick it on the rack. ;) </feeble attempt at humor> > BTW, PAM doesn't do password checking without a dictionary such as > CrackLib, so I don't really see what your point is. It was moot because shadow wasn't linked to cracklib. PAM was. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
