Bugzilla Bug 20606

DESCRIPTION="pam_dotfile is a module for pam to allow password-storing in
\$HOME
/dotfiles"
HOMEPAGE="http://www.stud.uni-hamburg.de/users/lennart/projects/pam_dotfile/"

<snip>
#%PAM-1.0
auth sufficient pam_unix_auth.so
auth sufficient pam_dotfile.so use_first_pass no_warn
auth required pam_deny.so
</snip>

As user waldo:

<snip>
[waldo@wonderi] ~$ pam-dotfile-gen -a imap
Password:quux
Please repeat; password:quux
Password added.
</snip>

That's it. User waldo may now access his IMAP mail store either by
using his unix password or by using quux.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:




did not test pam_dotfile
might have security-holes

Created an attachment (id=11661) [details]
ebuild for pam_dotfile

I just found a small bug (not a security-bug), so wait for an updated version.


(the problem lies in:
pipe(p)
<snip>
close(0)
close(1)
close(2)

dup2(p[0],0)

if filedescriptor 0 or 1 or 2 was not opened when calling pipe p[0] is 0/1/2 which will be closed before doing dup2)

====
when 

Created an attachment (id=12895) [details]
updated dotfile

I finally found the time to update to the new version.

Personally I even think many programs like exim and postgresql should depend on
this package if compiled with pam-support, as they are not capable of using the
existing pam installation.

IMO this module is the best way to use pam for other things than logins!

wow there are other modules that do this already.

pam_userdb comes to mind, which sounds a lot better than this.

Contrary to pam_userdb pam_dotfile does not use a central database.
All passwords are stored in the users-home directory!

In the example given, the file ~waldo/.pam-imap would be created and contains the encrypted 
password.

For me this has some interesting properties:
If I delete a User, i don"t have to remember to change de db used by userdb.
If I want some passwords to be the same, I can hardlink those files to be one file.
In addition the module does not depend on anything.

I hope I will find the time to update the ebuild to version 0.6 next week.

Created an attachment (id=16323) [details]
0.6 version of pam_dotfile

Created an attachment (id=16722) [details]
version 0.7 of pam_dotfile

Is there a reason (except for Donny Davies prefering another tool) for not
including this into portage?

No Christian Loitsch, only a time matter, where there are hundreds of
user-submitted ebuilds and not enough developers to handle them all in a quick
manner.

But thank you for your submission Christian Loitsch.

Which category did you want this to appear in?

I would put it into syslibs.

I think it fits better in app-admin if you dont mind, not in the same category
with glibc.  Also, pam-dotfile-helper is landing in /usr/sbin, are you sure
that's where you want it?

Anyways, I've added it.  Let me know if it's all ok and we'll remove the ~arch
masking.

Ciao.