Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 12:58:53 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Sean Bruno <sbruno@freebsd.org>, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How to update or should we update Kerberos Message-ID: <YTOPR0101MB095376A67E0BBB4A2961F4BBDD6D0@YTOPR0101MB0953.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <8e9fa53a-7455-d408-501e-461f40d44a3a@freebsd.org> References: <201805290234.w4T2YZH9003991@slippy.cwsent.com>, <8e9fa53a-7455-d408-501e-461f40d44a3a@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sean Bruno wrote: [stuff snipped] >Heh, yeah, I asked this question *wrong*. I know how we use it in the >cluster. :-) > >I mean to ask, "why aren't we using ports for kerberos?" What purpose >does it serve in the base system? Although I have no idea how many use it, both the NFS client and server can do Kerberized mounts. I haven't tried, but it probably needs some bits to build it and if you move it to ports, there would be duplicates (and the opportunity to have one change without the other introducing a hard to find bug). Also, I'd argue that security technology like this is pretty "core". I am mainly referring to the libraries and client side stuff and not the KDC. rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTOPR0101MB095376A67E0BBB4A2961F4BBDD6D0>