>From the keyboard of Jeremy,
> > > > At the moment I'm using mod_auth_pam for userauthentication on
> > > > special webfolders. /etc/shadow have to be accessed by apache
>
> > > And second some password-results aren't exposed like the root-p
> > > At the moment I'm using mod_auth_pam for userauthentication on
> > > special webfolders. /etc/shadow have to be accessed by apache
> > And second some password-results aren't exposed like the root-pw and
> > the accounts to maintain the machine.
>
add.
> >
> > At the moment I'm using mod_auth_pam for userauthentication on
> > special webfolders. /etc/shadow have to be accessed by apache
> > userid. (chgrp www-data /etc/shadow)
> >
> > Now the problem:
> > Everytime I add a new user with useradd
On Wednesday 26 September 2001 23:30, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> Hello *,
>
> I have a small problem with the userauthentification (.htacess)
> with auth PAM modul for Apache.
> Probably it is more a problem with useradd.
>
> At the moment I'm using mod_auth_pam
Hello *,
I have a small problem with the userauthentification (.htacess)
with auth PAM modul for Apache.
Probably it is more a problem with useradd.
At the moment I'm using mod_auth_pam for userauthentication on
special webfolders. /etc/shadow have to be accessed by apache
userid. (chgr
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:44:05AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > Just consider the case on hand: Any
> > daemon has to be root to be able to use it.
> No, just member of the 'shadow' group.
Ah, sorry, yes. I originally proposed that as a solution for the
mod_a
On Thursday 1 February 2001, at 10 h 45, the keyboard of Ingo Luetkebohle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just consider the case on hand: Any
> daemon has to be root to be able to use it.
No, just member of the 'shadow' group.
ezili:~> ls -l /etc/shadow
-rw-r-1 root shadow 1415
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:55:39PM +0100, Ingo Luetkebohle wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:41:09PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Not sure about your error message, but pam_unix.so cannot be used under
> > mod_auth_pam.
>
> Uh, it cannot be used to authenti
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 02:02:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> That's the most ignorant statement I have seen in awhile. So you suggest
> that a desktop box with one account have Kerberos or LDAP for users?
Come on. We have been talking about networked machines offering
services to the outside, r
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:41:35AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> And then, any one silly enough not to have shadow enabled, deserves
> to not even have a machine capable of being networked to the
> internet :)
shadow sucks. I use Kerberos or LDAP whenever I can. Both protocols
lend themselves much
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Ingo Luetkebohle wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:41:35AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > And then, any one silly enough not to have shadow enabled, deserves
> > to not even have a machine capable of being networked to the
> > internet :)
>
> shadow suck
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:41:09PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Not sure about your error message, but pam_unix.so cannot be used under
> mod_auth_pam.
Uh, it cannot be used to authenticate from /etc/shadow --
authenticating from /etc/passwd works fine!
> So you see, it cannot authent
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:48:57PM -0300, Felipe Alvarez Harnecker wrote:
>
> Hi, i hope not to boring you, but i'm having trouble with
> mod_auth_pam.
>
> my /etc/pam.d/http
>
> authrequiredpam_unix.so debug
> account required
Hi, i hope not to boring you, but i'm having trouble with
mod_auth_pam.
I'm getting this in apache error log
[error] (25)Inappropriate ioctl for device: access to / failed for
X.X.X.X, reason: Authentication failur
X.X.X.X is my IP address
my /etc/pam.d/http
auth
14 matches
Mail list logo
