[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#261771: marked as spam Bug#261771 acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#261771: ssh: breaks debian rules by hacking files in /etc/pam.d)

Oops,
I use rlogin very frequently - and after upgrade it wasn't working. It was the first thing I had to fix.
I did have to make a change in /etc/pam.d to get rlogin to working. But now I can't remember what it was. I'm not sure it had anything to do with ssh. 

But WAIT?  What is THIS in ssh.prerm

case "$1" in
    remove|deconfigure)
        update-alternatives --quiet --remove rsh /usr/bin/ssh
        update-alternatives --quiet --remove rlogin /usr/bin/slogin
        update-alternatives --quiet --remove rcp /usr/bin/scp
        if [ -x /etc/init.d/ssh ]; then

1) ssh was fudged in as "standard" priority of install

2) ssh breaks things, like X's -display and protocols

3) replaces standard unix tools, quietly.
Since when does Debian Policy say installing one package (which installs itself by merit of marking itself standard) can quietly replace files from another package - altering rudumentary unix functionality and compatibility - without informing the user?
Nope. Still don't like ssh. I dont' mind it being installed - as long as it doesn't change the software I use: GNU utils. 

Sorry I made a post without remembering what had happened in /etc/pam.d

Looking back - I shouldn't have made the post without rechecking.


Thanks,

	John D. Hendrickson

johndhendrickson22124@yahoo.com

jdh@hend.net


Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:

This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#261771: ssh: breaks debian rules by hacking files in /etc/pam.d,
which was filed against the ssh package.

It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>.

Their explanation is attached below.  If this explanation is
unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
message then please contact the developer, by replying to this email.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at 261771-done) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Jul 2004 11:48:59 +0000

From cjwatson@flatline.org.uk Wed Jul 28 04:48:59 2004

Return-path: <cjwatson@flatline.org.uk>
Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk [193.201.200.170] (mail)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1Bpmvb-0006qs-00; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 04:48:59 -0700
Received: from [192.168.124.112] (helo=riva.lab.dotat.at)
	by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.35 #1) with esmtp
	for 261771-done@bugs.debian.org
	id 1BpmvY-0006lV-00; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:48:56 +0100
Received: from cjwatson by riva.lab.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	for 261771-done@bugs.debian.org
	id 1BpmvY-0002Ea-00; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:48:56 +0100
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:48:56 +0100
From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
To: 261771-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#261771: ssh: breaks debian rules by hacking files in /etc/pam.d
Message-ID: <20040728114856.GA8542@riva.ucam.org>
References: <200407280349.i6S3nrtw000412@hend.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200407280349.i6S3nrtw000412@hend.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: 261771-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 X-Spam-Level: 
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:49:53PM -0400, John D. Hendrickson wrote:


I couldn't use rlogin / rsh after dist-upgrade becuase ssh had improperly
place himself in the /etc/pam.d/common-* files.



The ssh package does not touch /etc/pam.d/common-*.
It has in the past told users it was offering a secure shell when infact it did no such thing without hours of backwards configurations. The most recent 
version looks as if it has keys configured.  I'm not at all supprised to see
users are saying it is not using any security for logins.  Not at all.

It isn't compatible with telnet.  It breaks X - though it has found its way
into GNOME projects files anyway.

Its not transport compatible, not secure, hard to configure, pulls wool over
users eyes by calling itself a secure shell in its manpage.  It's hardly
an openvpn or kerberos.  It's practically inadvisable to install.

It has no place being "standard" or "base" at all - if you check the all too
lengthy bug logs.



Rants are not appropriate in the bug tracking system. Please take them
elsewhere. If you have a concise and accurate report about ssh's
behaviour, please file it, rather than yourself adding to the lengthy
list of bugs with a rant.
Reply to: