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


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:
	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= ** 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=;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


[Index of Archives]     [Info Cyrus]     [Squirrel Mail]     [Linux Media]     [Yosemite News]     [gtk]     [KDE]     [Gimp on Windows]     [Steve's Art]

  Powered by Linux