|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
From: Michael Klein (mklein
vitria.com)Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 15:10:42 CST
Thanks for the info.
I'll probably switch back to pap since it's a little cleaner/easier.
I realize that most REAL dial-in servers probably have Radius or some other
custom authentication mechanism...I just wanted the 'best' solution for my
little home-grown server box...
As I'm coming up on *nix, I'm getting tired of remembering every little dang
password and such (htpasswd for apache, smbpasswd for samba, chap/pap for
ppp, etc.), and would like everything to use PAM and LDAP if possible...
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Langasek [mailto:vorlon
netexpress.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:45 PM
To: 'pam-list
redhat.com'
Subject: RE: [PAM] PPP and PAM
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Michael Klein wrote:
> I was hoping to stick w/chap. I realize pap has the login option...but I
> wanted something slightly more secure...
The idea that CHAP is more secure than PAP is a laughable one, which
unfortunately has received a good deal of encouragement from such parties as
Microsoft. CHAP unavoidably requires keeping a centralized archive of all
passwords in plaintext on the server. Given that most PPP connections are
not
sniffable from the Internet, and given that most PPP *servers* /can/ be
attacked from the Internet, it is almost always preferable to send
cleartext-equivalent passwords on the wire and store one-way hashed
passwords
on the server, not the other way around.
CHAP does have its place as a security mechanism, but that place is almost
never on a machine that uses Linux-PAM.
> And I'm not really sure that the login option has anything to do with pam.
I
> believe this works because it goes directly to /etc/passwd (the system
> password database).
> If it used pam, then pam would be determining where it would go (ldap,
> etc/passwd, etc.). Maybe just the man page for the login option of pppd is
> out-of-date.
This is probably the case. I imagine that PAM support was added as a
compile-time option, whereas the manpages remain the same whether or not PAM
is compiled in.
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
_______________________________________________
Pam-list mailing list
Pam-list
redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list
_______________________________________________
Pam-list mailing list
Pam-list
redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]