On Sat, 07.12.13 18:25, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
Hi,
So playing around a bit it seems our default pam config for pam.d/login
uses a pam_securetty to only allow root logins via secure seats.
The file /etc/securetty are tty0-6 and vc/1-6
When booting with nspawn, the
'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 08/12/13 23:46 did gyre and gimble:
3. And finally, if we should not add console, could nspawn do
something clever with a temporary file + bind mount to temporarily allow
console logins in the /etc/securetty without actually modifying it.
I don't
Hi,
So playing around a bit it seems our default pam config for pam.d/login
uses a pam_securetty to only allow root logins via secure seats.
The file /etc/securetty are tty0-6 and vc/1-6
When booting with nspawn, the tty is console and thus I cannot login
as root.
Can I ask people here a few
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie wrote:
So playing around a bit it seems our default pam config for pam.d/login
uses a pam_securetty to only allow root logins via secure seats.
The file /etc/securetty are tty0-6 and vc/1-6
When booting with nspawn, the tty
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie wrote:
So playing around a bit it seems our default pam config for pam.d/login
uses a pam_securetty to only allow root logins via secure seats.
The file
El 07/12/13 15:25, Colin Guthrie escribió:
1. Is pam_securetty worth it?
No, it is not.
2. If so, is adding console to the default /etc/securetty safe?
It is as secure as any device access white/black list that it is not
enforced by the kernel. (i.e not at all, people are fooling themselves)
