[comp.unix.i386] Shadow passwords

jdp@PacBell.COM (Jerry D. Pierce) (12/27/89)

I'm running 386/ix (version 2.0.2) on a Compaq 386/20e and I have a
couple of questions in regards to shadow passwording.  On other systems
I administer, I pretty much keep the password file in UID (numeric)
order by directly editting the file with vi.  However, with shadow 
passwords in place, I am more than a little leery to try this.  Anyone 
have any suggestions??  Keeping the /etc/passwd & /etc/shadow entries
in numeric order makes the task of administering the boxes much
easier...
 
I also remember reading awhile back in the AT&T release notes for a
3B2/700 I was upgrading, something about "shadow passwording is not 
compatible with all applications, the general symptom is you will 
not be able to log into the machine."  Or something similar.  Anyone
had any problems??
 
   Jerry Pierce
   pacbell!pbhyf!jdp

cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (12/27/89)

In article <6637@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>, jdp@PacBell.COM (Jerry D. Pierce) writes:
> I'm running 386/ix (version 2.0.2) on a Compaq 386/20e and I have a
> couple of questions in regards to shadow passwording.  On other systems
> I administer, I pretty much keep the password file in UID (numeric)
> order by directly editting the file with vi.  However, with shadow 
> passwords in place, I am more than a little leery to try this.  Anyone 
> have any suggestions??  Keeping the /etc/passwd & /etc/shadow entries
> in numeric order makes the task of administering the boxes much
> easier...

Using vi (or any other program) to edit, sort, or do whatever else you might
want to do with /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow has the same limitations whether
or not the shadow file is used.  I manually add each user to the passwd 
file and then the shadow file using vi all the time.  You only run into 
problems when somebody else is doing something with the passwd/shadow file
at the same time you are editing the file.

> I also remember reading awhile back in the AT&T release notes for a
> 3B2/700 I was upgrading, something about "shadow passwording is not 
> compatible with all applications, the general symptom is you will 
> not be able to log into the machine."  Or something similar.  Anyone
> had any problems??

The problem is that if you have another program that is used to getting
the password out of /etc/passwd it will have to be modified to look for
the password in /etc/shadow.  All of the system utilities in 2.0.2 
use the /etc/shadow file (this includes login, passwd, telnet, and rlogin)

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Conor P. Cahill     uunet!virtech!cpcahil      	703-430-9247	!
| Virtual Technologies Inc.,    P. O. Box 876,   Sterling, VA 22170     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

hoffman@wrdso.ATT.DSO (Paul Hoffman) (12/28/89)

In article <6637@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>, jdp@PacBell.COM (Jerry D. Pierce) writes:
> couple of questions in regards to shadow passwording...I pretty much keep 
> the password file in UID (numeric) order by directly editting... 
> I am more than a little leery to try this.  
> I also remember reading awhile back in the AT&T release notes for a
> 3B2/700 I was upgrading, something about "shadow passwording is not 
> compatible with all applications, the general symptom is you will 
> not be able to log into the machine."  Or something similar.  Anyone
> had any problems??

See if you have a command "/usr/bin/pwconv".  On Sys V Rel 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 this
will rebuild your shadow file to match your password file.  The documentation
warns against directly editing /etc/passwd, but then tells you if you do to
rerun /etc/pwconv to ensure there is no incompatibility between the two.
I have been doing this for over a year w/ no trouble.

Re: incompatibility:  The only thing which broke when I converted to running
/etc/shadow was remote login authorization over a fiber interface to a 
DATAKIT VCS node.  Newer interface software on the 3B solved that.  (I didn't
care much anyway...the users could still get in through the login prompt over
the fiber...They just could not map themselves directly into their login on
this system automatically.)

If you decide against shadow, the command "/usr/bin/pwunconv" goes back to 
having encrypted password info in /etc/passwd.

Paul Hoffman

weave@sun.acs.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) (12/28/89)

In article <6637@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> jdp@PacBell.COM (Jerry D. Pierce) writes:
>
>I also remember reading awhile back in the AT&T release notes for a
>3B2/700 I was upgrading, something about "shadow passwording is not 
>compatible with all applications, the general symptom is you will 
>not be able to log into the machine."  Or something similar.  Anyone
>had any problems??
> 
Yes, I had that problem when we switched from Sys V 3.0 to 3.1 a while
back. A PC file server application by Locus (PC-Interface version 2.8.7)
broke. Basically, it allows DOS users access to the UNIX file system as 
a DOS drive and does its own user validation during its login. Obviously,
when user phredd entered his password, PC-Interface was looking for the
password in passwd and not shadow. The result was that there were a lot
of angry dos users at me. (eh, so what... :-)

Anyway, the warning is a valid one if you have any software that does
its own user validation with passwords. I just wish the warning you 
mentioned was in *MY* manual as well!
 
The fix was to get version 2.8.7.1 :-)   (No, for real, weird version #s!!)


-- 

Ken Weaverling - Systems Administrator |  Internet: 00499@vax1.acs.udel.edu
Delaware Technical & Community College |  Voice:    +1 302 573 5460

jdp@PacBell.COM (Jerry D. Pierce) (12/29/89)

In article <185@wrdso.ATT.DSO> hoffman@wrdso.ATT.DSO (Paul Hoffman) writes:

>See if you have a command "/usr/bin/pwconv".  On Sys V Rel 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 this
>will rebuild your shadow file to match your password file.  The documentation
>warns against directly editing /etc/passwd, but then tells you if you do to
>rerun /etc/pwconv to ensure there is no incompatibility between the two.
>I have been doing this for over a year w/ no trouble.

Great!  I'll use pwconv to keep the files clean and kosher, since I
can't un-do shadow passwords...

>If you decide against shadow, the command "/usr/bin/pwunconv" goes back to 
>having encrypted password info in /etc/passwd.

Unfortunately, I can't find pwuncov in my Interactive package.  Anybody
out there at Interactive care to comment?

>Paul Hoffman

I've received a number of e-mail responses to my query about shadow
passwords, and about half of them have experienced problems running
under shadow passwords.  (Appears that any programs which try to 
access a user password directly from /etc/password don't function
correctly, which does make sense.)
 
Since a number of packages don't support shadow passwording, I think 
that pwunconv SHOULD have been included in the release.  (2.0.2)

Thanks to everyone for the assistance!
 
   Jerry Pierce
   pacbell!pbhyf!jfp

mike@antel.uucp (Michael Borza) (12/29/89)

In article <1989Dec27.125642.3097@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>In article <6637@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>, jdp@PacBell.COM (Jerry D. Pierce) writes:
>> I also remember reading awhile back in the AT&T release notes for a
>> 3B2/700 I was upgrading, something about "shadow passwording is not 
>> compatible with all applications, the general symptom is you will 
>> not be able to log into the machine."  Or something similar.  Anyone
>> had any problems??
>
>The problem is that if you have another program that is used to getting
>the password out of /etc/passwd it will have to be modified to look for
>the password in /etc/shadow.  All of the system utilities in 2.0.2 
>use the /etc/shadow file (this includes login, passwd, telnet, and rlogin)

I know of at least rexec which still doesn't get it right.  Rexec'ing from
2.0.2 to 1.0.6 works just fine; going the other way fails because the
password validation fails.  This was also broken in 2.0.1, which I reported
to my vendor.  I had hoped, but didn't really expect, that it would be
fixed in 2.0.2.  Maybe in 2.2?

mike borza.
-- 
Michael Borza              Antel Optronics Inc.
(416)335-5507              3325B Mainway, Burlington, Ont., Canada  L7M 1A6
work: mike@antel.UUCP  or  uunet!utai!utgpu!maccs!antel!mike
home: mike@boopsy.UUCP  or  uunet!utai!utgpu!maccs!boopsy!mike