Thanks for the information.

But is not working for me.

account     required      pam_unix.so broken_shadow
account     sufficient    pam_localuser.so
account     sufficient    pam_succeed_if.so uid < 500 quiet
account     [default=bad success=ok user_unknown=ignore] pam_ldap.so
account     required      pam_permit.so

In Syslog (/var/log/secure) its keep on printing.

Accepted password for testuser from 1.2.3.4 port 46747 ssh2
failed to bind to LDAP server ldap://10.0.119.36/: Can't contact LDAP server
failed to bind to LDAP server ldap://10.0.119.36/: Can't contact LDAP server
reconnecting to LDAP server (sleeping 4 seconds)...
failed to bind to LDAP server ldap://10.0.119.36/: Can't contact LDAP server
reconnecting to LDAP server (sleeping 8 seconds)...
failed to bind to LDAP server ldap://10.0.119.36/: Can't contact LDAP server
reconnecting to LDAP server (sleeping 16 seconds)...

Yes, I'm using RHEL-5.4

Thanks & Regards,
Meghanand N. Acharekar




On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Buchan Milne <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Thursday, 3 February 2011 14:34:21 Meghanand Acharekar wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have configured a mixed authentication systems (LDAP + System Users).
> > On this system some users are configure to login via ldap rest as system
> > users.
> > I observed that if the ldap server goes down, system users also not able
> to
> > login.
> > Is there any way to prevent this, following my pam configuration.
> >
> > system-auth :
> >
> > auth        required      pam_env.so
> > auth        sufficient    pam_unix.so nullok try_first_pass
> > auth        requisite     pam_succeed_if.so uid >= 500 quiet
> > auth        sufficient    pam_ldap.so use_first_pass
> > auth        required      pam_deny.so
> >
> > account     required      pam_unix.so broken_shadow
> > account     sufficient    pam_succeed_if.so uid < 500 quiet
>
> Replace the above line with:
> account sufficient pam_localuser.so
>
> If you have pam_localuser.so available (you didn't mention which distro,
> but
> it seems to be RH-derived).
>
> Regards,
> Buchan
>

Reply via email to