Second, NIS sends it's encrypted passwords over the wire. This means that anyone with a sniffer can snag a few and start running dictionary password crackers. NIS+ fixes this, but apparently at a high administrative cost. IPSEC might fix this too. The situation is moot in this case, though as when windows clients send encrypted passwords, they are doing essentially the same thing. And that's the best windows has to offer right now.
--rich
Ryan Golhar wrote:
I would suggest using NIS. I currently have about 20 linux hosts that users can use. All users are authenticated via NIS. Its pretty easy to set up and run...
----- Ryan Golhar Computational Biologist The Informatics Institute at The University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ
Phone: 973-972-5034 Fax: 973-972-7412 Email: golharam@xxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message----- From: redhat-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of K. Richard Pixley Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:52 PM To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list Subject: authentication question
I'm at a loss for how to do authentication well for a small group of linux machines.
We have several linux hosts, all of which run samba, and all of which should use a single password per user, or at least, a single password change program which changes all passwords. Samba really wants to use a
domain server or to keep it's own password database separate from the unix passwords.
Any suggestions on how to get these all authenticated off the same database?
The only thing I can see to do is to turn one into a domain controller and have everything else authenticate off that. Are there any other alternatives?
--rich
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
