On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 10:36:53AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think dpkg-statoverride is not too bad in this case. I'll talk to
> >the nis package maintainer and see if that's acceptable. If not, nis
> >cou
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I think dpkg-statoverride is not too bad in this case. I'll talk to
>>the nis package maintainer and see if that's acceptable. If not, nis
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think dpkg-statoverride is not too bad in this case. I'll talk to
>the nis package maintainer and see if that's acceptable. If not, nis
>could install some flag file. The unix_chkpwd could start with root
>privs, chuck fo
> "Andreas" == Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andreas> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:37:45AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Andreas> [...]
>>> > I'd rather see a solution where we have some nis support
>>> package that >
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:37:45AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[...]
>> > I'd rather see a solution where we have some nis support package that
>> > makes unix_chkpwd setuid root when that support package is installed.
>> This would be even better.
> Y
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:37:45AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:16:59PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Matt> I think a single "Will you be using NIS?" question would be
> > Matt> justified; this cou
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:16:59PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> I think a single "Will you be using NIS?" question would be
> Matt> justified; this could provide defaults for md5 vs. crypt
> Matt> passwords and setuid
> "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt> I think a single "Will you be using NIS?" question would be
Matt> justified; this could provide defaults for md5 vs. crypt
Matt> passwords and setuid-ness of unix_chkpwd, and so those
Matt> questions could be suppress
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:26:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:59:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > The code does this:
>
> > if (strcmp(pwd->pw_passwd, "*NP*") == 0) { /* NIS+
> > */
> [...]
> >
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:59:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> You are wrong, unix_chkpwd does NIS (at least in the szenario I just
>> tested). After changing unix_chkpwd from 4755 root:root to 2755
>> root:shadow a NIS user can not unlock the termin
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:59:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> You are wrong, unix_chkpwd does NIS (at least in the szenario I just
> tested). After changing unix_chkpwd from 4755 root:root to 2755
> root:shadow a NIS user can not unlock the terminal he has just locked
> himself with vlock any
11 matches
Mail list logo
