[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:28:26 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: make -i with linux-pam
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:22:58PM +0200, aep wrote:
> Which is why i argued not to make it a stub, but instead fail
> compiling and let users figure out where to get a logwtmp from
> (maybe even submitting it upstream to pam!)
> People actually using PAM, will probably also want "who" to work,
> and if pam is the god given login system on your machine, then
> there's nothing wrong with giving it exclusive utmp access.
I don't see how using PAM would imply that you want your system to
leak information. They might be _used to_ it working, but that doesn't
necessarily mean they "want" it.
With that said, one acceptable approach might be to have utmp/wtmp
support exist, but silently bail out (reporting success) if the file
does not exist. That would make it easy for administrators who want
secure systems to avoid the information leak (making these files
symlinks to /dev/null also works; that's what I used to do).
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
