Bug 758

Summary: /etc/pam.d/ppp file incorrect?
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Daniel Senie <dts>
Component: pamAssignee: Cristian Gafton <gafton>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 5.2   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 1999-01-14 07:12:22 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Daniel Senie 1999-01-09 14:38:31 UTC
The pam control file for PPP seems to have some problems.

first, it's the only PAM file that does not have paths in
front of the PAM modules. The content was:

#%PAM-1.0
auth       required     pam_nologin.so
auth       required     pam_pwdb.so shadow nullok
account    required     pam_pwdb.so
session    required     pam_pwdb.so

I changed this to put /lib/security/ in front of each pam_
as is the case with all of the other modules.

I also removed "shadow" since I don't use shadow
passwording.

Comment 1 David Lawrence 1999-01-12 21:01:59 UTC
I have verified that the paths are indeed missing from the config file
mentioned.

This has been assigned to a developer for further review.

Comment 2 Cristian Gafton 1999-01-14 07:12:59 UTC
Pam knows were to look for the modules by default, so the lack of the
pathnames is not a problem (all files should be modified not to have
path names, but we can not do that for completely different reasons)

Also, "disabling" shadow won't help a bit on a non-shadowed system, as
that is completely transparent, but it will cause great problems on
the shadowed systems.