Re: Apache, mod_auth_pam, pam_krb4, and you

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Jason Rashaad Jackson wrote: > The KTH distribution, installed from the following .debs: > > kerberos4kth-dev > kerberos4kth-user > kerberos4kth1 > > On Monday 09 July 2001 11:35, you wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Jason Rashaad Jackson wrote: > > > I'm going slowly insane

Re: Apache, mod_auth_pam, pam_krb4, and you

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The KTH distribution, installed from the following .debs: kerberos4kth-dev kerberos4kth-user kerberos4kth1 On Monday 09 July 2001 11:35, you wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Jason Rashaad Jackson wrote: > > I'm going slowly insane trying to convince Apac

Apache, mod_auth_pam, pam_krb4, and you

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm going slowly insane trying to convince Apache to pass a user/pass to pam_krb4, thereby validating a user for entrance into a secure directory. Is it too much to hope for that it's this simple? Oh, yeah, my info: Apache 1.3.19 compiled from sour

Re: mod_auth_pam

On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:44:05AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Just consider the case on hand: Any > > daemon has to be root to be able to use it. > No, just member of the 'shadow' group. Ah, sorry, yes. I originally proposed that as a solution for the mod_a

Re: mod_auth_pam

On Thursday 1 February 2001, at 10 h 45, the keyboard of Ingo Luetkebohle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just consider the case on hand: Any > daemon has to be root to be able to use it. No, just member of the 'shadow' group. ezili:~> ls -l /etc/shadow -rw-r-1 root shadow 1415

Re: mod_auth_pam

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 02:02:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > That's the most ignorant statement I have seen in awhile. So you suggest > that a desktop box with one account have Kerberos or LDAP for users? Come on. We have been talking about networked machines offering services to the outside, ri

Re: mod_auth_pam

> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> shadow sucks. I use Kerberos or LDAP whenever I can. Both >> protocols lend themselves much better to PAM-integration, btw. Ben> That's the most ignorant statement I have seen in awhile. So I agree. The implication (admittedly

Re: mod_auth_pam

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:41:09PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > Not sure about your error message, but pam_unix.so cannot be used under > mod_auth_pam. Uh, it cannot be used to authenticate from /etc/shadow -- authenticating from /etc/passwd works fine! > So you see, it cannot authent

Re: mod_auth_pam

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:55:39PM +0100, Ingo Luetkebohle wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:41:09PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > Not sure about your error message, but pam_unix.so cannot be used under > > mod_auth_pam. > > Uh, it cannot be used to authenti

Re: mod_auth_pam

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:41:35AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > And then, any one silly enough not to have shadow enabled, deserves > to not even have a machine capable of being networked to the > internet :) shadow sucks. I use Kerberos or LDAP whenever I can. Both protocols lend themselves much b

Re: mod_auth_pam

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Ingo Luetkebohle wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:41:35AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > And then, any one silly enough not to have shadow enabled, deserves > > to not even have a machine capable of being networked to the > > internet :) > > shadow sucks

Re: mod_auth_pam

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:48:57PM -0300, Felipe Alvarez Harnecker wrote: > > Hi, i hope not to boring you, but i'm having trouble with > mod_auth_pam. > > my /etc/pam.d/http > > authrequiredpam_unix.so debug > account required

mod_auth_pam

Hi, i hope not to boring you, but i'm having trouble with mod_auth_pam. I'm getting this in apache error log [error] (25)Inappropriate ioctl for device: access to / failed for X.X.X.X, reason: Authentication failur X.X.X.X is my IP address my /etc/pam.d/http auth