how to do it.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 10:26 AM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Rich Megginson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/04/2014 09:16 AM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 09:16 AM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>>
>> hello
>> I know there use to be a document on doing this because I did it
>> several years ago at a previous job but I cant seem to find it in the
>
toggles the "force password change
> after reset" checkbox built into the password policy in 389?
>
> On 1/22/14 10:49 AM, "Paul Robert Marino" wrote:
>
>>sorry thats not possible.
>>If you are using Kerberos then you can do it via the kadmin command.
>&g
its possible most LDAP servers don't put a unique constraint on that field.
in fact it's occasionally done intentionally in LDAP servers that
handle multiple OU's where hosts are only expected to look at one of
them. The problem is it messes up your systems permissions if you have
overlaps.
On Thu
have you considered using Kerberos instead of ssh keys?
its fairly transparent and doesn't require any patches.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Vesa Alho wrote:
>>> I'm just wondering if anyone has experience storing public keys in 389
>>> directory server to allow a user to login using an ssh-k
On 9/9/2011 2:51 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 09/09/2011 12:50 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>> On 9/9/2011 2:42 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2011 12:38 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>>>> On 9/9/2011 2:31 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>>>> On
On 9/9/2011 2:50 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
> On 9/9/2011 2:42 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
>> On 09/09/2011 12:38 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2011 2:31 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>>> On 09/09/2011 12:11 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>>>>>
On 9/9/2011 2:42 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 09/09/2011 12:38 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>> On 9/9/2011 2:31 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2011 12:11 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>>>> a couple of days a ago I did a yum update on one of my boxes. on
On 9/9/2011 2:31 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 09/09/2011 12:11 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>> a couple of days a ago I did a yum update on one of my boxes. one of the
>> thing that updated was the 389-console rpm
>>
>> now every time i try to run it i get an erro
only get 1024.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Paul Robert Marino
> wrote:
>> you need to edit /etc/security/limits.conf
>> add an entry for nofile the the default is 1024 the max is 65536 (1024 *
>> 64 ) here is an extreme example setting it to the max for all u
you need to edit /etc/security/limits.conf
add an entry for nofile the the default is 1024 the max is 65536 (1024 *
64 ) here is an extreme example setting it to the max for all users
"
* hardnofile 65536
* soft nofile 65536
"
after you have
you need to do an iptables update now
you can temporally flush the rules with
'sudo /sbin/service iptables stop'
you will need to add a rule to /etc/sysconfig/iptables and restart the
iptables "service"
On 7/8/2011 11:27 AM, Arian Sanusi wrote:
> I just disabled IPv6 completely - the network is
ce if that was fixed eventually because i would
like to enable selinux on this box eventually
On 6/22/2011 3:47 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 01:43 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>> Ive been trying to install on 389 RHEL 6.1 and i keep geting dependency
>> errors
>>
Ive been trying to install on 389 RHEL 6.1 and i keep geting dependency
errors
This is the last error thats hanging me up and i know its just an
incorrect dependency in the spec file or a package that has not updated
in the repo yet
see below
"
yum install 389-ds --enablerepo=epel-389-ds-ba
14 matches
Mail list logo
