From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 20 13:27:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B312637B401 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dsl-mail.kamp.net (mail.kamp-dsl.de [195.62.99.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EB3343F3F for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:27:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from me@farid-hajji.de) Received: (qmail 18520 invoked by uid 505); 20 Jul 2003 20:27:43 -0000 Received: from me@farid-hajji.de by dsl-mail by uid 502 with qmail-scanner-1.14 (spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:. Processed in 0.186526 secs); 20 Jul 2003 20:27:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reverse-213-146-116-200.dialin.kamp-dsl.de) (213.146.116.200) by dsl-mail.kamp.net with SMTP; 20 Jul 2003 20:27:43 -0000 From: Farid Hajji To: Doug White Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:27:41 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <200307202032.02281.me@farid-hajji.de> <20030720123716.V65450@carver.gumbysoft.com> In-Reply-To: <20030720123716.V65450@carver.gumbysoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307202227.41390.me@farid-hajji.de> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: login(1) doesn't enforce times.allow/times.deny over ssh(1) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: me@farid-hajji.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:27:40 -0000 On Sunday 20 July 2003 09:38 pm, Doug White wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Farid Hajji wrote: > > When using ssh, I'm not trying public/private keys, > > just plain unix passwords. Doesn't ssh access login(1) > > in this case? > > sshd does not use login unless requested to do so by the UseLogin config > parameter. Yessss, that was it. > There have been security vulnerabilities exposed by using this option in > the past. You have been warned :) So we need an additional pam module for such policy settings. That's reasonable. Many thanks. -- Farid Hajji. http://www.farid-hajji.net/address.html