Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:46:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@highperformance.net> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How much PAM is enough? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0204281141560.21388-100000@server2.highperformance.net> In-Reply-To: <xzpg01fekrt.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 Apr 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > "Jason C. Wells" <jcw@highperformance.net> writes: > > For example, there exists a module "pam_nologin". Why would I want to use > > a PAM module when FreeBSD supports this natively? > > Because pam_nologin *is* how FreeBSD supports /etc/nologin. It does? Pam_nologin doesn't appear in the default /etc/pam.conf. There must be more to PAM than is readily apparent from the config files. (BTW, I happened across your message in the archives that showed the -CURRENT is using pam.d now. I expect -STABLE to do so soon, so I have adjusted my config.) Thanks, Jason C. Wells To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0204281141560.21388-100000>