Subject: Re: PAM
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Ross Patterson <Ross.Patterson@CatchFS.Com>
Date: 09/26/2002 12:17:55
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 09:01 pm, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> I don't mind the paths as much as I despise hard to understand
> configuration files. Also configuration files should be easily parseable
> and editable by software, not only humans.
The examples of parseable-but-not-understandable config files are legion, but
we can easily take Apache and sendmail as two illustrations of why both
aspects are important.
> > I notice that under Solaris, all sorts of fields are required for each
> > entry. There must be a somewhat less complex way of setting up modules
> > for incorporation. I haven't played with Linux sufficiently to see how
> > their PAM works.
entry in the file consists of only three or four required tokens (depending
on whether you use per-service or monolithic config files) and optional
parameters for the specific module. You can put together a reasonable
config file for one service with less than a dozen lines of text.
> Does the system really need to do so many things? All I want is one
> module for one type of authentication, with two deterministic resutls -
> success or failure. Simple, easy, and uh, sufficient. Keep it simple,
Here's one example, from a real-world corporate-IT environment. One of my
former employers was a largely-Microsoft shop, with a centrally-managed MIS
operation and roughly 20,000 staff, each enrolled in one of three
geographically-designated MS-Windows "domains". All sorts of applications
required logging in, and by edict all of them must use the domain controllers
as the authentication service. Why? Because when someone leaves the
company, their access to *all* services can be turned off immediately and
definitively. The only allowed exceptions to this rule were engineering-lab
systems, which were presumed to be insecure and managed ad-hoc.
The PAM-LDAP module made it possible to integrate Linux systems into this
environment, because in a rare instance of clear vision Microsoft allowed
LDAP access to their Windows domain controllers. Becuase of PAM's model of
return values, we were able to set up configurations that, for example,
allowed root to log on from the physical console without a password, but only
when the domain controller was unavailable. Some folks will scream that
that's a *very* insecure situation, but that's a matter for the local
administration to decide. In our case, those systems were located inside
physically secure facilities, and the system managers believed that access to
the consoles was protected well enough to make it appropriate.
Ross A. Patterson
CatchFIRE Systems, Inc.
5885 Trinity Parkway, Suite 220
Centreville, VA 20120