On 9/26/06, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday, 25 September 2006, at 14:54:36 (+0900), > Jerome Pinot wrote: > > > That's not only for *BSD, some Linux distro like Slackware doesn't > > use PAM. > > Ah, Slackware... The most advanced Linux technology 1995 has to > offer.
I will just suggest you look at what Slackware _really_ provides or believe your doing some kind of humour. BTW, for 1 year, at least thousand of people used E17 with Slackware: http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=148645&ugn=slacke17&type=prdownload&mode=alltime&package_id=0 In several days, Slackware 11.0 and the new SlackE17 will be out. Almost 50 packages of the very last of E17 cvs code (the one of tomorrow). So I'm not sure running Slackware brings you 10 years ago :-) > > Is there any workaround (or a small patch to get back the personal > > password)? > > I would love to hear a justification for not using PAM. Here are severals: Patrick Volkerding (2003-09-23): "If you see a security problem reported which depends on PAM, you can be glad you run Slackware. I think a better name for PAM might be SCAM, for Swiss Cheese Authentication Modules, and have never felt that the small amount of convenience it provides is worth the great loss of system security. We miss out on half a dozen security problems a year by not using PAM, but you can always install it yourself if you feel that you're missing out on the fun. (No, don't do that.) OK, I'm done ranting here. :-)" Look at this: http://search.cert.org/query.html?col=certadv&col=incnotes&col=vulnotes&qt=pam&charset=iso-8859-1 Some technical informations about why OpenBSD guys don't use PAM: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2001/06/26/0000.html IMHO, PAM is a complex security system, so if you don't require it (and most of the time, you can use an other way), you should not use it. To be honest, desklock is not a major feature of E17, but it could be good to have a portable way of using it. PAM should not be require or you put aside from this feature not so few people. Moreover, PAM doesn't seems to be implemented the same way everywhere. > A patch to reinstate the personal password might be accepted so long > as it correctly employed UNIX permissions to keep the password > private. OK. > Michael Regards, -- Jerome Pinot http://ngc891.blogdns.net/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
