It is the expected behavior.
passwd uses PAM to change password, but there are no API to expire a password.
(I have no idea whether there would be such feature in a LDAP user database; if
this exist, then some LDAP tools are needed)
What could be done is to document in the manpages the options w
** Package changed: shadow (Ubuntu) => rabbitmq-server (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/838585
Title:
In login window, list of users includes RabbitMQ user.
To manage notifica
** Package changed: shadow (Ubuntu) => lightdm (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/881988
Title:
ldm-greeter blocks login after resume from standby before logging in
To manage no
This might be caused by the interaction with a specific PAM module.
Can you provide your /etc/pam.d/su configuration (and files included
there).
Also did you have any message on the terminal, on /var/log/auth.log or
on /var/log/syslog?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a mem
I'm not really worried by the consistency of single files (each one are
updated atomically).
The problem is the inconsistency between files (e.g. /etc/passwd and
/etc/shadow).
I'm not sure what would be the worst case if for example /etc/passwd is updated
but /etc/shadow is not.
--
You receive
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 546874 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/546874
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 546874
passwd - can't login, change password (pam_winbind pam-auth-update profile)
--
cannot change root's password anymore
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/5
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 546874 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/546874
The provided strace mentions windbind.
This looks to me as a duplicate of bug 546874.
Reporters: please check the resolution there.
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 546874
passwd - can't lo
Just a note for any future bug reporter:
It is now clear that it happens that the passwd or shadow (or group, or
gshadow) files can be locked.
The "me also messages" are not very useful (and will not make the resolution of
this bug, if it is really a bug, any faster).
Please provide instead any
vigr and vipw do not call vim. This is due to a misconfiguration of your
system.
According to vipw(1):
When looking
for an editor, the programs will first try the environment variable
$VISUAL, then the environment variable $EDITOR, and finally the default
editor, vi(1).
The message "System error" is coming from PAM.
My first guess is that you have a misconfiguration on your system, but
this could also be a PAM bug.
Can you check you /var/log/auth.log for messages from PAM?
Can you provide you PAM configuration?
(/etc/pam.d/passwd and the files linked from there)
login is a command line interface program.
Based on the XsessionErrors, my first guess is that this was intended as
a bug report for the gnome login dialog box.
** Package changed: shadow (Ubuntu) => gdm (Ubuntu)
--
"enhance contrast in colours" does not return to default apperance when
unsele
shadow uses lckpwdf / ulckpwdf to cooperatively lock the files.
These APIs do not provide any information on why a lock could not be
received.
Since the locking issue can be caused by other issues than lack of
priviledges, I don't think the proposed change would be valid.
--
userdel command sho
login is an essential package. There is no need to depend on it.
Regarding the other issue, would you have some sample group and gshadow file?
(make sure they do not contain any sensitive information before posting them
here.
--
Missing dependency to login
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/487448
You have a problem with your PAM installation (see all the "... is
missing" in your bug report).
The "Module is unknown" message indicates that a PAM module was not
found, which is consistent.
dpkg thinks that libpam-modules is installed on your machine, but a lot
of files are missing, this might
The goal of the lock files is to protect users from doing something
wrong when system files might be in an inconsistent state.
Removing the lock files at boot time would definitely avoid the issue
pointed in this bug report, but would mean "there is probably something
wrong with the system files,
> adduser in Debian doesn't seem to be very responsive to our bug
reports, so we may need to fix it ourselves...
Whether this will be fixed by yourselves or by Debian, the problem need
to be understood first.
Is there a way to reproduce the issue? Does anybody have an idea if this
lock file was r
I do not know what fixed the bug, but the bug is not in shadow.
Given the description, it seems related to kde. I don't really know
which of the kde packages manage the logins or if the bug is on the kde
session management, so I reassign to kdebase.
** Package changed: shadow (Ubuntu) => kdebase
>From the backlog, it seems oo2po reported an error when it was feed with a MS
>PowerPoint document.
oo2po is not meant to deal with this format, so the error is expected.
Also oo2po did not crash, but just reported an error (it could just have been
fancyer).
Thus I'm closing the bug.
** Change
1) did the update worked afterward?
2) How long did you let it hang?
3) do you have a lot of users?
are you using LDAP or a nss configuration other than 'files' (maybe it is
named 'compat' instead of files)?
do you have users with an high UID?
There were some reports that useradd i
Hello Petri,
Can you make a proposal on how to fix this (i.e. do you speak Finnish?)
I have no idea if just the URL should be removed, or the whole paragraph, or
the whole manpage.
shadow uses a PO based translation. It could be used to help the
translation of the Finnish manpages and ease its m
I will add these lines to /etc/securetty in the next Debian package.
Why did you included the displays from 0 to 63? (Is 63 the maximum, or is it
just meant to be mostly complete?)
If 63 is not the maximum, I would prefer to reduce the number of displays to a
more reallistic value (i.e. I do not
I submitted:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2730965&group_id=6663&atid=106663
to get the same behavior when a password is changed on 1970 01 01 with
PAM.
Michael, in you patch, is it really needed to raise a warning?
** Bug watch added: SourceForge.net Tracker #2730965
htt
This is not a login issue, but a kde login issue.
** Changed in: kdebase (Ubuntu)
Sourcepackagename: shadow => kdebase
--
kubuntu login screen on msi wind not maximized
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/326042
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is sub
There is currently no effort to get a better support for LDAP in shadow.
(patch welcome, though)
LDAP is currently supported by shadow only when the libc (NSS) or PAM
provides support for LDAP.
IIRC libc developpers were already not very happy having to support LDAP (or
maybe even shadow files).
Hello,
Are you still experiencing this bug?
Can you provide your /etc/pam.d/passwd and /etc/pam.d/common-password
files?
--
passwd does nothing (and is happy about it)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/324922
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is sub
I prepared a Debian package for 0.3.1 it should be available in
unstable, but I don't know how it migrates to Ubuntu
--
Wishlist: new upstream release 0.3 is available
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/327412
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subsc
It reminds me https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/272232
Could you provide your PAM configuration?
(/etc/pam.d/passwd and /etc/pam.d/common-password should be sufficient)
--
passwd indicates password updated although it wasn't
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/303515
You received this bug notif
Hello,
I do not really support the idea, users should use adduser instead of
usermod. Also the actions are logged in syslog, and backup files are
generated by shadow.
However, if anybody provides a patch for this feature, please do not
make it the default behavior, and implement it consistently (
Michael,
Do you know if there are other supported ttymxcX devices?
--
Freescale MX series needs new ports added to securetty.linux
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/316841
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs ma
If you could provide the old /etc/login.defs, that could help others checking
if you made any changes.
If you know the previous version of login you were using, it would be even
better.
Depending on what you did, the old configuration file might still be on
you system as /etc/login.defs.dpkg-old
FAIL_DELAY should no more be part of the current /etc/login.defs file
distributed by the login package.
When you upgraded, you should have receive a message for this file to
ask you if you want to kkeep your configuration file, use the one
distributed by the package, or see a diff.
The proper way
The SIGSEGV occurs in /lib/security/pam_smbpass.so
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Sourcepackagename: shadow => samba
--
login crashed with SIGSEGV in dump_core()
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/278617
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed
crypt(3) is provided by manpages-dev.
I don't think this note in useradd(8) is sufficient to add a dependency
on manpages-dev.
--
absence of crypt(3) conflicts with useradd(8) man page
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/274534
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bu
This looks like a PAM configuration bug.
When pam_unix fails, the error is (willingly) ignored.
One temporary solution to fix this could be to change the line:
password [success=1 default=ignore] pam_unix.so obscure sha512
to
password required pam_unix.so obscure sha512
** Changed in: pa
Thanks.
And what about the content of /etc/pam.d/common-password ?
Did you make any change to PAM configuration?
--
passwd - passwords do not match but updated successfully
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272232
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which i
I cannot reproduce it here (on Debian).
Can you provide your /etc/pam.d/passwd ?
(and files included from there)
--
passwd - passwords do not match but updated successfully
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272232
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
This is clearly not a login issue (login is a command line tool used to
login on terminal).
I don't know if it's a gdm, nvidia-xconfig, or non-issue.
I looks similar to #216871.
I will let the gdm maintainers have a look at it.
** Changed in: gdm (Ubuntu)
Sourcepackagename: shadow => gdm
--
Di
I don't think there is a bug. This looks like a configuration issue.
When it is called, chfn authenticates the calling user (root), and then
check if the calling user's is valid.
Being root is sufficient to get authenticated (pam_rootok is loaded in
/etc/pam.d/chfn), but /etc/pam.d/comman-account
Upstream moved to a PO based process to translate the manpages, and will
gladly accept a Spanish PO file.
You can request a POT file on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(currently there are no POT file in the repository:
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-shadow/upstream/trunk/man/po/).
--
Spanish man page for
This should be fixed in shadow 4.1.0.
All getpw(ent/nam/uid) were audited and the replaced by call to xgetpw(nam/uid)
when pam function might be used between the call and the usage.
These new functions use the libc's *_r functions or copy the structures in
newly allocated memory.
It would be ni
This was committed upstream (will be fixed in version 4.1.2).
--
[hardy beta] the man page and --help output for 'useradd' are inconsistent
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/206226
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu
This was fixed in upstream 4.1.1.
No security implications were foreseen neither at that time.
--
newgrp segfaults on exit when default group isn't in /etc/groups
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/130205
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is a direct
The debian 4.1.0-1 version fixed this (MD5_CRYPT_ENAB can be set to
yes).
Note that the prefered solution would be to define ENCRYPT_METHOD to MD5.
(ENCRYPT_METHOD was introduced in 4.1.0 to allow new password encryption
methods).
--
newusers uses crypt insted of md5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
43 matches
Mail list logo
