On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:41:02 -0500 (EST)
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Do you dispute this? Can you provide a concise explanation of why
PAM is not sufficient?
Concise: Because not
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:41:02 -0500 (EST)
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Do you dispute this? Can you provide a concise explanation of why
PAM is not sufficient?
Concise: Because not
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:41:02 -0500 (EST)
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>
> > Do you dispute this? Can you provide a concise explanation of why
> > PAM is not sufficient?
>
> Concise: Because not all systems have PAM, and some
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Concise: Because not all systems have PAM, and some of those lack standard
getpw* interface to get the encrypted password. Heck, in some there IS no
password.
Detailed: Kerberos and ssh-keys are two such examples. I am sure there's at
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:08:50PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
But you've stated that with pam in the mix and a "null" password,
you basically get it accepting any password. So you too, are an
audience for the "keep this password in .screen
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:08:50PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> But you've stated that with pam in the mix and a "null" password,
> you basically get it accepting any password. So you too, are an
> audience for the "keep this password in .screenrc and be done with
> it" :)
Nope. The
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
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 cre
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 f
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Sadly, even though I am root on the systems involved -- the tweak we
really need here is extending screen's builtin lock to support the
password stored in .screenrc
Clearly I d
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>> Sadly, even though I am root on the systems involved -- the tweak we
>>> really need here is extending screen's builtin lock to support the
>>> password stored in .screenrc
>>
>> Clearly I don't know what you're talking
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The question comes up: "if I can get at your uid, why do I need your
screen?"
In order to observe the output when I run "gpg -d" on an encrypted,
confidential file. Simply having my login passw
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question comes up: "if I can get at your uid, why do I need your
> screen?"
In order to observe the output when I run "gpg -d" on an encrypted,
confidential file. Simply having my login password would not grant
access to GPG encrypted
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I support extending screen's builtin lock to support PAM.
+1. I wondered if that was the problem all along.
___
screen-users mailing list
screen-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/screen-user
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Micah Cowan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or wha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>
>> Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or whatnot -- there's
no way t
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or whatnot -- there's
no way through .screenrc to change this (why?)...and yet the output of a
locked screen looks significantly
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:48:15AM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Trent W. Buck wrote:
> > Are there any lurkers on the list that would care to chime in with
> > useful examples on how they use LOCKPRG?
> >
> > A while back, what I wanted was the a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Are there any lurkers on the list that would care to chime in with
> useful examples on how they use LOCKPRG?
>
> A while back, what I wanted was the ability to blank the screen after
> two minutes of inactivity, and then *lock*
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>> According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or whatnot -- there's
>> no way through .screenrc to change this (why?)...and yet the output of a
>> locked screen looks significantly different from when I use lock alone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or whatnot -- there's
> no way through .screenrc to change this (why?)...and yet the output of a
> locked screen looks significantly different from when I use lock alon
I am on a system at work where all our passwords are kerberized, and the
password field in my account is "*" Thus, when locking screen, it asks
for a key.
Now, interestingly enough, it would be rather trivial for a locked screen
to use its internal locking tool, and just use the password I've
21 matches
Mail list logo
