From owner-freebsd-arch Mon May 28 11:54:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from gratis.grondar.za (grouter.grondar.za [196.7.18.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8803637B422; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:54:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.za) Received: from grondar.za (gratis.grondar.za [196.7.18.133]) by gratis.grondar.za (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4SIsh649433; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:54:45 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.za) Message-Id: <200105281854.f4SIsh649433@gratis.grondar.za> To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PAM, S/Key and authentication schemes. References: <20010526145521.D11876@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20010526145521.D11876@dragon.nuxi.com> ; from "David O'Brien" "Sat, 26 May 2001 14:55:21 MST." Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 20:57:03 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:42:40PM +0200, Mark Murray wrote: > > We currently have a slew of authentication schemes in FreeBSD. There > > is the usual lot in getpwent(3) and friends, OPIE, S/Key and PAM, and > > Is there some reason we cannot `cvs rm' S/Key and only use OPIE? OPIE > was intended as a replacement for S/Key. I want to do this. > > S/Key is OBE in my opinion and needs to be entirely replaced by OPIE. > > (And in the majority of cases pam_opie will do the job). > > Do you know why ?ache? did not totally replace S/Key when he imported > OPIE? It was PST IIRC, and it looked like he was starting to get busy with Juniper. M -- Mark Murray Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message