On 7 April 2012 05:45, Ben Secrest wrote:
> I'm not sure the best way to differentiate between the shadow vs. NIS
> situation. One guess is that when shadow information is present, the
> pw_passwd field of the passwd struct will contain 'x', '*', or
> whatever the system uses as a placeholder in
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 11:56:01PM +, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> On 4/7/12, Ben Secrest wrote:
> > I'm not sure the best way to differentiate between the shadow vs. NIS
> > situation. One guess is that when shadow information is present, the
> > pw_passwd field of the passwd struct will cont
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 11:56:01PM +, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> Slock should use a high-level authentication interface that will
> perform whatever authentication the site administrator requires. How
> much does this list hate or love PAM?
PAM can get stuffed, but there's no reason slock can
On 4/7/12, Ben Secrest wrote:
> I'm not sure the best way to differentiate between the shadow vs. NIS
> situation. One guess is that when shadow information is present, the
> pw_passwd field of the passwd struct will contain 'x', '*', or
> whatever the system uses as a placeholder in /etc/passwd.
I've run into an issue with slock on a system with both local and
remote users. The default config works with the local users because
the getpw() function queries password information though NSS and then
the shadow system. In the case of remote users, the appropriate
information is retrieved from N
