Qui, 2011-03-10 às 20:26 +, Lionel Flandrin escreveu:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 07:12:41PM +, Miguel Lopes Santos Ramos wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I'll probably be looking into that sooner or latter.
> >
> > However, OPIE, nobody cares about OPIE?
>
> Hi,
>
> I do care about OPIE,
Thanks!
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:00, mbox@ wrote:
/etc/profile
grep "^${LOGNAME} " /etc/opiekeys ||/usr/bin/opiepasswd -c
Yes, or /usr/bin/opiepasswd -d. In general, this is a problem of keeping
-d would not be correct for the above example as opiepasswd would run if
the user was not found. If the use
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 07:12:41PM +, Miguel Lopes Santos Ramos wrote:
>
> Qui, 2011-03-10 às 19:20 +0100, Remko Lodder escreveu:
> > > Yes, that's right. That would solve a whole lot of other problems too.
> > > It's true that I'm using SSH in many cases just as an easy to administer
> > > VP
Qui, 2011-03-10 às 19:20 +0100, Remko Lodder escreveu:
> > Yes, that's right. That would solve a whole lot of other problems too.
> > It's true that I'm using SSH in many cases just as an easy to administer
> > VPN. I've been postponing that for years. But I would need something
> > that worked wi
>>
>
> Yes, that's right. That would solve a whole lot of other problems too.
> It's true that I'm using SSH in many cases just as an easy to administer
> VPN. I've been postponing that for years. But I would need something
> that worked with FreeBSD and Gentoo (don't want to learn two tools) and
Qui, 2011-03-10 às 02:23 -0500, J. Hellenthal escreveu:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:51, mbox@ wrote:
> >
> > I think the way pam_opieaccess behaves is like "leave a security breach
> > by default". I think it would be more usefull if it returned PAM_SUCCESS
> > when:
> >
> > 1. The user does not have
