Hi Lorenzo,
I don't think I can easily make a patched RPM, but I will
try. Hopefully upstream will be able to do it, though.
As for the remote user, I can see that saslauthd does receive
that info, but it doesn't log it via PAM, as you can see. I believe
this is because the remote user is not being passed into the correct
field of the pamh struct, within auth_pam. It's being passed into
the login field, but it should also be passed into the user field, I
believe. I'm not a PAM expert, so I can't be sure, but I think this
is the case.
The default configuration for most systems is not to log
debug-level info, so all we see is the * line, which has no user
info. I think if the username is passed into the correct field of
the pamh struct, this should be fixed... I'm just not sure which is
the correct field.
Thanks. =)
--- Amir
At 10:15 AM +0200 05/23/2011, Lorenzo M. Catucci wrote:
Amir,
I just checked the 2.1.23 patch applies with just some line shift
to 2.1.22. I have no handy way to test it and I have no experience with
SRMPs, specs and the like, since my systems are debian based. I'd be
VERY grateful if you could try yourself to create a patched RPM for
a test
system of yours!
As for the "pass the requested login name", saslauthd does know the login
name, as it must be passed to the auth handlers; if you set the syslog
level for the authpriv syslog destination to debug, you'll be able to see
lines like the following ones:
May 23 09:53:36 test saslauthd[28570]: pam_unix(svc:auth): check
pass; user unknown
May 23 09:53:36 test saslauthd[28570]: pam_unix(svc:auth):
authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser=
rhost=127.0.0.1 **
May 23 09:53:38 test saslauthd[28570]: DEBUG: auth_pam:
pam_authenticate failed: Authentication failure
May 23 09:53:38 test saslauthd[28570]: do_auth : auth
failure: [user=cg] [service=svc] [realm=] [remote=127.0.0.1;42002]
[mech=pam] [reason=PAM auth error] **
Since that is the default configuration on my systems, I didn't get
the problematic * line, since all you need is shown in **.
I don't make any promise, but I'll try to understand this glitch.
Thank you very much, yours
lorenzo
