On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 04:05 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Michael Loftis wrote:
> >> checks prior to this indicate a soft success. If you remove
> >> authentication from your system, its expected that any attempt to
> >> access
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 19:16, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 05:19 PM, Jim P wrote:
>> Please move this thread to debian-u...@. EOM
>
> I find it ironic you top post and don't trim while asking people to move
> something to Debian-User.
That was posted from a mobile device. This isn't.
On 10/27/2010 05:19 PM, Jim P wrote:
> Please move this thread to debian-u...@. EOM
I find it ironic you top post and don't trim while asking people to move
something to Debian-User. This guy has what /he/ thinks is a /security
issue/. According to Debian this list is: Discussions about /securi
Please move this thread to debian-u...@. EOM
-Jim P.
On Oct 27, 2010 6:16 PM, "Jordon Bedwell" wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 04:05 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Michael Loftis wrote:
>>> checks prior to this indicate a soft success. If you remove
>>> authentication from
On 10/27/2010 04:05 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Michael Loftis wrote:
>> checks prior to this indicate a soft success. If you remove
>> authentication from your system, its expected that any attempt to
>> access will pass, barring and specific denial.
>
> If I re
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:22:26PM -0400, Brad Tilley wrote:
> I felt the same way. I understand that I removed authentication by
> accidentally commenting out that line, but I thought that would cause
> authentication to fail. Obviously, authentication is not succeeding,
> it's just that authentic
Don't want to sound flame bait but...
This is just a typical pebkac problem. As an admin you are always able to
remove authentication from a system no matter how "safe" the failsafe is.
How about: don't experiment with stuff that you don't fully understand?
The original post was about doing so
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Michael Loftis wrote:
>> checks prior to this indicate a soft success. If you remove
>> authentication from your system, its expected that any attempt to
>> access will pass, barring and specific denial.
>
> If I remove authentication from
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Michael Loftis wrote:
> checks prior to this indicate a soft success. If you remove
> authentication from your system, its expected that any attempt to
> access will pass, barring and specific denial.
If I remove authentication from my system, I expect it to tell me to get
lo
Depends on your full stack, but yes, this is the PAM behavior as checks
prior to this indicate a soft success. If you remove authentication from
your system, its expected that any attempt to access will pass, barring and
specific denial.
--On Monday, October 25, 2010 17:16 -0400 Brad Tilley
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:16:51PM -0400, Brad Tilley wrote:
> While experimenting with PCI DSS on a default Debian Linux system, I
> found that when I comment out this line:
>
> authrequiredpam_unix.so nullok_secure
>
> in /etc/pam.d/common-auth, any account may ssh into the box by t
While experimenting with PCI DSS on a default Debian Linux system, I
found that when I comment out this line:
authrequiredpam_unix.so nullok_secure
in /etc/pam.d/common-auth, any account may ssh into the box by typing
anything as the password. Is this the desired behavior? I would thi
12 matches
Mail list logo
