Hi Tito ! > I vote for PAM, this stuff in my opinion does not belong to busybox:
May be PAM is the de facto standard, but what about those whose do not like to use PAM on there systems (as they consider them bloated)? I vote for adding a general usable OTP feature in Busybox, like we have the already configurable option to use PAM or not, or like libc based/inline shadow passwords. May be that OTP feature shall be considered as a default NO configuration, but still being able to enable it if required. ... but it shall be as general usable as possible. That is: Do not place secrets in code, let all special functionality be configurable from lets say /etc/otpasswd, etc. -- Harald _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
