Your message dated Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:14:49 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
has caused the Debian Bug report #87648,
regarding libpam-runtime: pam ignores FAIL_DELAY
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) Tomasz KÅoczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 87648-forwarded) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Oct 2005 18:06:14 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 14 11:06:14 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from perrier.eu.org (kheops.perrier.eu.org) [81.56.227.253]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EQTwc-0007uX-00; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:06:14 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by kheops.perrier.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB674F983;
Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:05:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from kheops.perrier.eu.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (kheops [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 26527-07; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:05:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org (mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org
[192.168.1.3])
by kheops.perrier.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CCF4F987;
Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:05:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by cc-mykerinos.onera (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 7781240AA8E; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:14:49 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:14:49 +0200
From: Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tomasz =?utf-8?Q?K=C5=82oczko?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#87648: Is login really using PAM for the
fail delay?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at kheops.frmug.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using "Reply-To" header
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Quoting Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> While looking at http://bugs.debian.org/87648, I was surprised to see
> that the delay for failed logins seems to be only coming from
> FAIL_DELAY in /etc/login.defs
>=20
> Our=A0/etc/pam/d/login file in Debian includes common-auth which
> includes:
>=20
> auth required pam_unix.so nullok_secure
>=20
> adding "nodelay" to this does not have any effect on login while it
> removes the delay for su, for instance.
>=20
> The only way to configure the fail delay in login still seems to be
> FAIL_DELAY.
>=20
> Tomasz, is this still a minor leak in PAMification?
Could this go on the TODO list for 4.0.14?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
