Hello!
Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Sun, Oct 22, Bjoern Voigt wrote:
Why we don't include the module pam_faildelay in the standard PAM
distribution? This has some benefits:
I wrote it more or less new using the extended Linux-PAM functions
and wrote some documentation for it. It is now in the Linux-PAM CVS.
Thank you very much for this integration. I checked out the new module
online here:
http://pam.cvs.sourceforge.net/pam/Linux-PAM/modules/pam_faildelay/
I didn't made tests, but the code look good for me.
One little thing should be changed: In files README, pam_faildelay.8 and
pam_faildelay.8.xml we have
AUTHOR
pam_faildelay was written by Bjoern Voigt <bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
Thank you, but I am not the author. I sent a link to the website from
Darren Tucker <dtucker@xxxxxxxxxx>:
http://www.zip.com.au/~dtucker/patches/#pam_faildelay
There (in file pam_faildelay.c) you find the right authors:
* Based on pam_rootok and parts of pam_unix both by Andrew Morgan
* <morgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*
* Portions Copyright (c) 2005 Darren Tucker <dtucker at zip com au>.
* users can find it easier since it's in their distribution
* Linux distributors can configure the applications with fail delay
be default
* the module will be maintained
Hm, adding it to Linux-PAM CVS does not mean that it will be maintained.
If nobody maintians it, it could be that it will be, at some point,
be removed again.
Yes, but I think this module is not very complex, so that's unlikely
that we don't find maintainers for it. For instance I can maintain it,
if nobody else (for instance you or Darren want's to maintain it).
Greetings, Björn
_______________________________________________
Pam-list mailing list
Pam-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list
