[36003] in Kerberos
Re: root login via Kerberos5 - "User not known to the underlying
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Allbery)
Fri Apr 4 12:54:19 2014
From: Brandon Allbery <ballbery@sinenomine.net>
To: Wendy Lin <wendlin1974@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:54:01 +0000
Message-ID: <1396630441.16364.14.camel@vikktakkht.oh3.sinenomine.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+j=ERrVQy=Oj_NQPiZi9D-cbgFXXjhdzPmC9ZhnJUPNBE56Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-ID: <3D92C108E8DA644FBF18E88B3B9A8523@mex05.mlsrvr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "kerberos@mit.edu" <kerberos@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: kerberos-bounces@mit.edu
On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 18:43 +0200, Wendy Lin wrote:
> On 4 April 2014 18:29, Brandon Allbery <ballbery@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 18:21 +0200, Wendy Lin wrote:
> >> On 24 March 2014 11:31, Wendy Lin <wendlin1974@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Of course, I do not know why this suddenly works. Can someone explain
> >> this? Why didn't it work when pam_unix came first?
> >
> > Because root will always have a local account (required for the system
> > to operate) and the "sufficient" designation means that authentication
> > succeeds at that point without trying other authentication modules.
>
> But why did the other account (test001) had similar issues? Does it
> mean I always have to use pam_krb5.so first?
PAM configuration can be fairly complex, especially if you don't follow
very simple rules like "local accounts are only authenticated locally".
I suspect that your use case is best handled by always having pam_krb5
first, but cannot be certain without more details.
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates
allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
________________________________________________
Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
