Bug 230401 - gdm create spurious audit entries
gdm create spurious audit entries
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gdm (Show other bugs)
All Linux
high Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Ray Strode [halfline]
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-02-28 14:09 EST by Tomas Mraz
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-03-06 14:17:15 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Tomas Mraz 2007-02-28 14:09:50 EST
I cloned the RHEL4 bug report as it seems that this one somehow stayed unfixed 
in Fedora and RHEL5. There was an errata for RHEL4 with this.

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #161230 +++

Description of problem:
Testing has shown that there is a spurious audit message being generated by gdm:

type=USER_ERR msg=audit(06/21/05 09:44:32.699:783952) : user pid=2155 uid=root 
auid=unknown(4294967295) msg='PAM bad_ident: user=? exe="/usr/bin/gdm-binary"
(hostname=?, addr=?, terminal=? result=User not known to the underlying
authentication module)'

This causes the audit system to log what could be interpretted as "suspicious"

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. install audit package
2. reboot into run level 5
3. ausearch -i -x gdm

Actual Results:  Among other things you will find a USER_ERR message with no

Additional info:

-- Additional comment from tmraz@redhat.com on 2005-06-21 12:53 EST --
Created an attachment (id=115763)
Proposed patch

This patch simply disables the checking call to pam which is not necessary when
gdm is part of the distribution and not manually installed from sources by
Comment 1 Ray Strode [halfline] 2007-03-06 14:17:15 EST
This should be built into rawhide now.

Is there a RHEL5 bug somewhere too?
Comment 2 Tomas Mraz 2007-03-19 07:19:46 EDT
Probably not. I'll clone this one.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.