Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 06:38:17PM -0500, Matthew P. McGuire wrote:
> Valid point, but unless I am wrong this is really bad. For instance, the
> city of Largo, FL currently uses a large setup of cheap X-Terminals, and
> it worries me that the authentication mechanism is possibly insecure.
Using X11 over untrusted natworks is basically insecure. If for example you
enter your PGP Passphrase or your Opie password, you basically have lost. Of
course you are right, xdm could use some sort of support for challenge
response in the X Server. But this needs to be addressed on the X Server
level.
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Wendelinusstrasse39.76646Bruchsal.de --
( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD eckes@irc +497257930613 BE5-RIPE
(O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Reply to: