On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:54:22PM -0600, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:42:01 -0800 > frederik@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > I don't understand the need for that reaction... > > He posted that he's glad he broke the rules, implying that he'd gladly do it > again in the future. A strong reaction is not only warranted, but necessary. > I am sorry to ask this so late in the discussion, but why Arch default of the "other" module was insecure (and hence why the change)? Is there something wrong with pam_unix? Thanks, -- Leonid Isaev
