Hi Milan,
This would be good to take upstream at minimum. Moving
away from a binary MD5/3DES choice would be better. Moving
to PAM would be better still, as you get this for free and there
is no danger of it getting out of date again and causing a similar
issue.
Thanks,
James
--
users-admin
I don't really understand how it's working currently. Is Ubuntu using
SHA? If so, is liboobs writing MD5 passwords to /etc/shadow?
We should at least support SHA as well as MD5. I plan to make a release
before Karmic so that a few bugfixes go into it. Do you think you could
improve the patch
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 05:56:58PM -, Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
I don't really understand how it's working currently. Is Ubuntu using
SHA? If so, is liboobs writing MD5 passwords to /etc/shadow?
The current patches in Ubuntu use chpasswd to determine the hashing (i.e.
it is not something
On Wed Sep 02 17:56:58 UTC 2009 Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
I don't really understand how it's working currently. Is Ubuntu using
SHA? If so, is liboobs writing MD5 passwords to /etc/shadow?
That's what the patch in this bug does. Kees implemented a better
solution for us which gave us
James, any news on that front? Should the fix go upstream? Should it be
improved?
--
users-admin sets up maximum 8 character password
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/287134
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to
