Bug 51734

Summary:

Suggestion for improving rlogin rsh rexec with PAM Reference Guide Chapter 8

Product:

[Retired] Red Hat Linux

Reporter:

Andrew Wiseman <a.wiseman>

Component:

rhl-rg

Assignee:

Johnray Fuller <jrfuller>

Status:

CLOSED WONTFIX

QA Contact:

Severity:

medium

Docs Contact:

Priority:

medium

Version:

7.1

Keywords:

FutureFeature

Target Milestone:

---

Target Release:

---

Hardware:

All

OS:

Linux

URL:

http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-7.1-Manual/ref-guide/s1-pam-rexec.html

Whiteboard:

Fixed In Version:

Doc Type:

Enhancement

Doc Text:

Story Points:

---

Clone Of:

Environment:

Last Closed:

2001-12-17 19:02:49 UTC

Type:

---

Regression:

---

Mount Type:

---

Documentation:

---

CRM:

Verified Versions:

Category:

---

oVirt Team:

---

RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:

Cloudforms Team:

---

Target Upstream Version:

Embargoed:

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Suggestions for improvements	none

Description Andrew Wiseman 2001-08-14 15:20:36 UTC

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0b; Windows 98)

Description of problem:
Chapter 8 of the RH7.1 Reference Guide has a section that deals with how 
to use rlogin, rsh and rexec with PAM. After following the instructions 
carefully, I found there were some pitfalls which might usefully be 
mentioned in a revision of the text. My suggestions are in the attachment.

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.-
2.
3.
	

Additional info:

Comment 1 Andrew Wiseman 2001-08-14 15:43:38 UTC

Created attachment 27733 [details]
Suggestions for improvements

Comment 2 Sandra Moore 2001-08-22 18:06:48 UTC

Thanks, we will work on improving this with your suggestions in the next round
of the documentation and when our new technical writer begins.

Comment 3 Johnray Fuller 2002-03-27 17:31:23 UTC

Thank you so much for your suggestions. After reviewing the section you are
refering to, I have decided to pull it from the book entirely. Setting up PAM to
allow root access these services is just a really bad idea and I don't
particularly see a value in this when OpenSSH can be used for the same purpose
much more safely.

Again, I want to thank you for the time you put into helping us improve our
documentation. Thanks to folks like you, we are able to create documentation
that more accurately accounts for the user's experiences in the field.

Thanks,
Johnray