On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 08:26:36PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On 3 Nov 1999, Philip Hands wrote: > > > It seems to get confused about the bit-length of some keys generated > > with older versions of ssh. Instead of thinking they are 1024 bits long, > > it will treat them as though they are 1023 bits long. This seems to be > > harmless, but it does mean that you need to edit the line in your known > > hosts file, replacing the 1024 with 1023. > Given a similar experiance with GPG+RSA I think this is due to the way gmp > encodes numbers [drops leading 0s]. It should be fixable and sounds like a > serious problem. I'll investigate. Thanks! > > Other than that, it seems to be working well for me. > Does it have PAM? Short answer: Yes, and by release, it'll even have _good_ PAM. Long answer: Yes, but not the way we want it to. It uses pam_pwdb.so (but will no-longer as of friday when I get home. I'll be ripping that out and submitting a patch). -Dan -- "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Attachment:
pgp9V9AwrDDmf.pgp
Description: PGP signature