|Summary:||/etc/pam.d/ppp file incorrect?|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||Daniel Senie <dts>|
|Component:||pam||Assignee:||Cristian Gafton <gafton>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||1999-01-14 07:12:22 UTC||Type:||---|
|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.