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

Re: Problem dialing in w/AutoPPP/PAP! Help!



On Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 01:53:01PM -0600, Jeff Noxon wrote:
> > 
> > And it worked using pap-secrets:
> > 
> > * hostname "" *
> 
> FYI, I'm using lines like:
> 
> jeff	*	""	*
> steve	*	""	*
> tom	*	""	*
> 
> Since I don't want all my accounts to be PPP-able.
> 
> > It doesn't work without the leading * (maybe it's a bug in the
> > pap-secrets parser, but it's not a real problem).
> 
> I don't think that's a bug.  I think the format is:
> 
> <username> <hostname or asterisk> "<password>" <ip address?>
> 

Right, but the manual says that the ip address can be absent, but it
can't.

> > I don't know if a ppp-shadow package will be needed or if there's
> > another way to build a debian package usable for SHADOW and not SHADOW
> > systems (i've started with debian development only to see what
> > happended with the ppp daemon, i'm sure that Phil should have the
> > answer, but as he states, maybe PAM support is the way to do it).
> 
> I think the is the fundamental problem.  You can't have it both ways
> without two different packages.  *BUT* the PAM version *should* work
> both ways.  IMHO there should only be a PAM version.  Make that one work,
> and forget the rest.  Is there a reason NOT to use PAM?

  I don't know, but i think i've read messages telling PAM wasn't as
good as ist's supposed to be, i need to work with it to tell you.

> When I turned off Shadow to make PPP work, it broke checkpassword,
> a binary used by Qmail's POP3 daemon.  I applied PAM patches to
> checkpassword, and it now functions correctly whether Shadow is enabled
> or not.
> 
> > > It this the case with ppp-pam installed ?
> > 
> > Yes, it fails for me, but i haven't used PAM before and i don't know
> > where is the problem. If time permits i'll try to find the bug in the
> > code.
> 
> Since I have PAM working with checkpassword, I don't know why it isn't
> working with PPP.

  I've found the point where the problem appears, but i've to read all
the PAM docs to understand it. Phil uses a null funcion called
'pam_conv' and he says it doesn't has to be called, but it is called
in the 'pam_authenticate()' function when validating the user. If
changed it to return PAM_SUCCESS but the pam_authenticate() generates
the same error: PAM_CONV_ERR.

  I don't know where is the bug, but i think there's sometring wrong
in the way the PAM methods are called, maybe looking at some other PAM
enabled application will help ... 

  Cheers,

    Sergio

-- 
=============================================================================
|  Sergio Talens-Oliag, Systems & Network Administrator.                    |
|                                                                           |
|  Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA)                  |
|  Carretera Moncada - Naquera, Km. 4,5             Telf:   +34 6 139 10 00 |
|  Apartado Oficial, 46113 Moncada (Valencia)       mailto:sto@ivia.es      |
|  SPAIN                                            http://www.ivia.es/~sto |
=============================================================================


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: