On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:28:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Um, no, they are not. I don't need to dig into the source to know you're
wrong. Check the PAM spec, the API documentation in the pam-doc package, or
the symbol table of any Debian version of libpam.so.0 -- if these symbols
are
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:45:24AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'd recommend importing PAM 0.78's upstream and then looking at each
of the debian local patches and seeing whether they should be
maintained, dropped or modified.
Well, I've dedicated an hour of work to this today and I've (almost)
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:53:06PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
pam-0.78.orig/Linux-PAM/examples$ LC_ALL=C make
gcc -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wnested-externs -Winline
I hate to be a pain in the ass, but it is going to be very difficult
for me to take a huge .diff.gz that applies all the debian patches.
That's hard to audit, hard to understand and not well documented. I'm
happy to give you access to the repository so you can work on a branch
and try to get
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 12:20:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
undefined reference means that libpam.so does not contain symbols for
these functions. That's a rather critical problem, considering these are
core PAM functions.
If you took a little bit of time to dig into the source before
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:35:17PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
I hate to be a pain in the ass, but it is going to be very difficult
for me to take a huge .diff.gz that applies all the debian patches.
That's hard to audit, hard to understand and not well documented. I'm
Well documented? The
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 12:34:23AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 12:20:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
undefined reference means that libpam.so does not contain symbols for
these functions. That's a rather critical problem, considering these are
Javier == Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Javier On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:49:01PM -0500, Sam Hartman
Javier wrote:
severity 300775 wishlist tags 300775 -security
Javier ^ Why this? PAM 0.76 is indeed
Javier vulnerable to the
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:49:01PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
severity 300775 wishlist
tags 300775 -security
^
Why this? PAM 0.76 is indeed vulnerable to the issues fixed in 0.78
Hi. I've explicitly decided not to upgrade PAM for sarge. I had also
decided when 0.77 came
severity 300775 wishlist
tags 300775 -security
thanks
Hi. I've explicitly decided not to upgrade PAM for sarge. I had also
decided when 0.77 came out that I didn't see a good reason to take it.
Taking a new pam release is a painful process.
That said, I'm looking for people to help with PAM.
Package: libpam-runtime
Version: 0.76-22
Priority: serious
Tags: security
It seems we are missing some of upstream releases (0.77 was released in
September 2002 and 0.78 was released in November 2004). Please package this
new release:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/pre/library/
The
11 matches
Mail list logo
