Subject: Re: PAM enabled on head
To: None <current-users@netbsd.org>
From: Sean Davis <dive-nb@endersgame.net>
List: current-users
Date: 03/08/2005 21:19:49
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 08:07:43PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.51.0503081613410.2105@lothlorien.starwolf.com>,
> Greywolf  <greywolf@starwolf.com> wrote:
> >[Thus spake John Nemeth ("JN: ") 2:54am...]
> >
> >JN: } Comparing it to /etc/passwd is not fair.
> >JN:
> >JN:      Sure it is.
> >
> >Sure...in the same way that you are saying that "well, we've added this
> >thing called a security ignition to your car, so you must now not only
> >put in the key to the ignition, but you must mumble a serial number
> >backwards in Swahili before it will let you engage the starter.  Free
> >of charge.  Figured we'd put it in while we fixed your tire.  You don't
> >mind this, do you?  It's all the rage these days, you know."
> 
> Actually the breathalizer is a better example. It is required by law
> on some states if you are caught DWI.

Interesting implication. Are we being punished for authenticating without
PAM?

- Sean

--
 _
( ) ASCII Ribbon Campaign
 X
/ \ For Plain Text Email