nanogui: Thread: Access control


[<<] [<] Page 3 of 3 [>] [>>]
Subject: Re: Access control
From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date: 16 Dec 2000 20:08:59 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10012162005100.748-100000@hyperspace.linuxhacker.org>

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Joe deBlaquiere wrote:
> Do you even have to change the interface from a unix domain socket? I 
> would think you could just have 'nxsshd' open the unix socket.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

-- 
------- Alex Holden -------
http://www.linuxhacker.org/
 http://www.robogeeks.org/

Subject: Re: Access control
From: "FamZon Systems" ####@####.####
Date: 19 Dec 2000 22:05:22 -0000
Message-Id: <001301c06a08$64dc0f80$12c48ec6@andrewnb2>

> Do you even have to change the interface from a unix domain socket? I
> would think you could just have 'nxsshd' open the unix socket.

True for SSH but not true for all other security daemons. Remember the idea
is to give the user flexibility in the security mechanism they want to use
with the minimal disruption. Some security daemons don't support unix domain
sockets and if you don't have the source you can't alter it.
Despite this, where you do have the source, or the daemon supports unix
domain there is no problem.

The other advantage of enabling TCP sockets is that you can use an external
crypto device if you want to.



[<<] [<] Page 3 of 3 [>] [>>]


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.