From owner-freebsd-current Sun Mar 10 23:01:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA10201 for current-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 23:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from veda.is (root@veda.is [193.4.230.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA10190 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 23:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.7.4/8.7.3) id HAA01428; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 07:00:46 GMT From: Adam David Message-Id: <199603110700.HAA01428@veda.is> Subject: Re: HEADS UP! Please check... To: mark@grondar.za (Mark Murray) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 07:00:39 +0000 (GMT) Cc: mark@grondar.za, freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199603110643.IAA02287@grumble.grondar.za> from Mark Murray at "Mar 11, 96 08:43:29 am" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL10 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > is this considered a security feature, to require non-kerberos handling > > to be explicitly requested?... (I will rephrase to ask what I meant to...) > > but in that case why did the previous version ask for the password twice > > at all? If this is a security feature, why allow the password to be offered to both kerberos and "normal" authentication at all, without requiring the user to specify which one? (of course, the default depends on whether kerberos exists). Sorry, I probably missed something really obvious here. -- Adam David