Bug 235298 - chage has a limit range of valid dates
chage has a limit range of valid dates
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: shadow-utils (Show other bugs)
5.0
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Peter Vrabec
David Lawrence
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-04-04 17:15 EDT by Michael C Thompson
Modified: 2009-09-01 14:09 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-09-01 14:09:06 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Michael C Thompson 2007-04-04 17:15:04 EDT
Description of problem:
chage does not except extereme dates. This is probably a function of integer
date representation...

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
shadow-utils-4.0.17-12.el5

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
::FAILURE::
chage chage_user
Changing the aging information for chage_user
Enter the new value, or press ENTER for the default

        Minimum Password Age [2]: 100
        Maximum Password Age [20]: 20000
        Last Password Change (YYYY-MM-DD) [2008-05-05]: 2004-02-01
        Password Expiration Warning [7]: 123
        Password Inactive [1]: -1
        Account Expiration Date (YYYY-MM-DD) [2009-05-05]: 3000-01-01
chage: error changing fields

::SUCCESS::
chage chage_user
Changing the aging information for chage_user
Enter the new value, or press ENTER for the default

        Minimum Password Age [2]: 10
        Maximum Password Age [20]: 400
        Last Password Change (YYYY-MM-DD) [2008-05-05]: 2004-04-04
        Password Expiration Warning [7]: 3
        Password Inactive [1]: 1
        Account Expiration Date (YYYY-MM-DD) [2009-05-05]: 2020-01-01
Comment 1 Steve Grubb 2007-04-05 11:30:11 EDT
Maybe it should print a nicer error message? I personally don't see failing to
set the date to the year 3000 as being a problem. Just how it denies the request
could be better explained.
Comment 2 George C. Wilson 2007-04-10 11:57:52 EDT
Is this a real problem? It is not targeted for 5.1 right now. Should this be
marked LSPP?
Comment 3 Linda Knippers 2007-04-10 13:49:26 EDT
In my opinion it isn't LSPP related so it isn't blocking anything and
shouldn't be marked LSPP.
Although the error message could be more meaningful, it doesn't seem
like a real problem.  

Just my 2 cents...
Comment 4 Kris Wilson 2007-04-10 18:52:27 EDT
We agree that this fix is not required for LSPP; therefore "LSPP" is not needed
in the summary.  Thanks!

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