On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:04:25PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: >> It asks for *both* the login password and the screen session >> password. > > Yes, and the point is: I don't have a login password, so upon > "locking" I am given the opportunity to create one, which has no > persistent form of storage?
That sounds like Screen is not compatible with whatever Kerberos stuff you're using. > Are you trying this with a "*"'d account, which is usable in > situations such as: I have tested this on systems using null passwords, local md5 passwords, and NIS passwords. I have not tested this on a system using Kerberos for user accounts. > #ifndef USE_PAM > [...] I should note that that block is only in use if you're *not* > using pam, which I guess is how the BSD port builds things. All my systems use PAM. > If you're not seeing the above behavior, you probably have screen > compiled with PAM support -- which from your pov likely means your > "unlock" password's being passed through that stack. Agreed. > If the pam support had been tested at all on this distro -- even from > what Micah said previously: "I would support extending screen's builtin > lock to support PAM" -- led me to believe screen was pam-unaware until I > just now looked at the code. Probably Micah hasn't had to look at that part of the code yet. _______________________________________________ screen-users mailing list screen-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/screen-users
