Bug 758 - /etc/pam.d/ppp file incorrect?
/etc/pam.d/ppp file incorrect?
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: pam (Show other bugs)
5.2
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Cristian Gafton
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 1999-01-09 09:38 EST by Daniel Senie
Modified: 2008-05-01 11:37 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 1999-01-14 02:12:22 EST
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 Daniel Senie 1999-01-09 09:38:31 EST
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 16:01:59 EST
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 02:12:59 EST
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.

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