[buug] PAM (& base install of BSD)
khogoboom at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 17:49:52 PST 2011
So, you're saying I want a process running all the time that sucks up CPU
cycles while I'm on my own machine talking only to myself on a base install
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Michael Paoli <
Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> From: "Karen Hogoboom" <khogoboom at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: login [not] a daemon? ... & CDs
>> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 06:30:13 -0800
> I still don't see why a base install of BSD decided I wanted to use PAM.
> Because PAM is generally the right way to do it. It rather cleanly
> (via API) separates out most authentication, etc. from the programs
> that need to use such.
> In the "bad old days" before PAM, if one needed to add a new
> authentication scheme, one would have to update (e.g. recode/recompile)
> all the programs that used authentication to support the new
> authentication scheme. Likewise if a bug was found in said
> authentication scheme, all those programs would need to be updated.
> With PAM, just the PAM modules/programs themselves would need to be
> updated. The concept and practice is relatively similar to shared
> libraries in general.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the buug