From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 3 13:22:57 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677F169D; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:22:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274942A58; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nine.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by smtp-int.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B514456D; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by nine.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1BA7733A18; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:22:57 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: lev@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH, PAM and kerberos References: <86sixrwdcv.fsf@nine.des.no> <20130830131455.GW3796@zxy.spb.ru> <8661uj9lc6.fsf@nine.des.no> <20130902181754.GD3796@zxy.spb.ru> <867geywdfc.fsf@nine.des.no> <20130903083301.GF3796@zxy.spb.ru> <86y57euu8y.fsf@nine.des.no> <20130903093756.GG3796@zxy.spb.ru> <86ppsqutw7.fsf@nine.des.no> <998724759.20130903142637@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20130903103922.GI3796@zxy.spb.ru> <6110257289.20130903145034@serebryakov.spb.ru> <86d2oquopo.fsf@nine.des.no> <226539732.20130903154908@serebryakov.spb.ru> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:22:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <226539732.20130903154908@serebryakov.spb.ru> (Lev Serebryakov's message of "Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:49:08 +0400") Message-ID: <8661uiujin.fsf@nine.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org, Slawa Olhovchenkov X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 13:22:57 -0000 Lev Serebryakov writes: > Why do we need separate daemon for it? Why it could not be built-in > to sshd itself? sshd is just one of many applications in the system. > One more daemon -- one more point of failure... Or you can look at it the other way around: less copy-pasting between applications and far fewer chances to screw it up. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no