hscast at charter.net
Fri Oct 3 18:40:43 PDT 2008
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>> That said, pam is pretty complex.
>> That is why I don't use it. Don't get me wrong. In a multi-user envronment, it
>> may be necessary, but in most single user environments it really just gets in
>> the way. The LFS servers don't use it either and I'm not aware of any security
>> problems that have occurred in the last 9 years where PAM wold have helped.
> True, true. However, Scott did say later that he'd like to learn more
> about security. Like it or not, pam is a major piece of the puzzle on
> modern linux systems. So, if that is his goal, getting a first hand
> education on pam will serve him well. I do agree, though, that it you
> can certainly have a secure system without pam.
That's my intent, as I'm running and continuing my build on a VM that
uses NAT for networking to the host ntwk which the host has it's own
firewall and SELinux enabled as well as being behind a firewall/router.
I'm a little paranoid. I'd like to learn more about security as in all
the years that I've worked in computers I haven't been in that end of it.
More information about the blfs-support