Talk:Pluggable Authentication Module

How does PAM relate to SASL, GSS API, JAAS? Yaron 23:03, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

JAAS is a Java implementation of PAM. PAM provides low-level authentication functions and wouldn't be used on the protocol level like SASL, although some SASL libraries (Cyrus) use PAM for the underlying authentication. ElBenevolente 00:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Requested Additional Info

Can some more information on the individual PAM modules be presented? Or should a sub page be created for the Linux PAM Modules?

Personally I would love to see more discussion about stacking modules, as in explanations for the use_authtok, and other similar stacking friendly directives. As well as a sufficient/required/optional discussion.

Requested move

• Oppose. Unless a term is only used as a plural (i.e. you would never have just one Christmas light, it's always Christmas lights), then it should always have a singular article title.   –radiojon 01:45, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • You never have just one Pluggable Authentication Module either, you always have a set of them... just as a single christmas light isn't remotely useful, neither is a single PAM module; your system wouldn't function at all. Also, PAM literally refers to the plural form, it's never referred to in the singular. Biot 13:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, if there is an actual protocol named "Pluggable Authentication Modules" then it needs to be moved to that properly-capitalized name instead. If it is just a concept of how something works, then it should remain at pluggable authentication module.   –radiojon 17:10, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
      • If you have no idea what PAM is, what possesses you to spout opinions on it? Biot 17:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The terms "pluggable authentication module framework" and "pluggable authentication module library" are acceptable, and thus I don't see the need to go against the usual "singular" convention. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• For. The convention is always the plural, 'Pluggable Authentication Modules'. The standard Sun submitted to X/Open is 'Pluggable Authentication Modules' (plural). All of the major documentation refers to it in plural. Why is this such a big deal? This entry is obviously about the UNIX standard, so change the name. Alexander Guy 00:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the family of modules, not the singular. silsor 15:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't see why that makes a difference. The term can be (and frequently is) used as a singular and it's standard naming convention to have the article at such a name. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• For the same reason it's not "Microsoft Window." That isn't the name of the piece of software under discussion (though now I review this it should be "Pluggable Authentication Modules" (capitalized). Demi ^T/_C 19:03, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're saying, but the term is also commonly used as a singular – even in the external links of the article. My argument is that it should not be at Pluggable Authentication Modules when people may wish to use the singular (as in "the Pluggable Authentication Module framework"). However, there is clearly support for the plural naming, so I've moved it. violet/riga (t) 19:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand the confusion, but it is not just a difference between singular and plural. "Pluggable Authentication Modules" can be used as the plural of "Pluggable Authentication Module", but it is also the name of a system of which those modules are a component. This article is about the system. silsor 01:25, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of Pam section needs to be re-written

This section is not structured well. One sentence comprises the first paragraph. The second paragraph is comprised of multiple facts that are not well-explained in the current run-on sentences. The meaning of each is obscured. On my fourth read, I noticed that the second paragraph is comprised of three sentences, not two. The second sentence begins with a lower case letter -- a grammatical nuance that I'd been missing.

I came to this article to obtain a basic understanding of PAM. I may not be the best person to edit this paragraph. But I will if nobody else has fixed it, when I visit it later. 97.122.93.97 (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Kernel.package (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kerberos

The article says: "Despite PAM being part of the X/Open Single Sign-on (XSSO) standard, PAM on its own cannot implement Kerberos, the most common type of SSO used in Unix environments."

I'm not sure what they mean by this, and there's no footnote. Also, the FAQ says: "Currently ldap, ssh, CIFS9000 (samba) and kerberos are all known to work with HP-UX PAM". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Pluggable Authentication Module. No opposition to the requested move. A brief web search as a sanity check seems to confirm the nominator's argument that the subject is almost universally referred to with capital letters. However, I have stuck to a singular title, as that found consensus in a 2005 RM and best follows WP:NCPLURAL. (closed by non-admin page mover) Toadspike [Talk] 12:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Pluggable authentication module → Pluggable Authentication Modules – The page describes a framework known as "Pluggable Authentication Modules" in all related specifications (e.g. https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/8329799/toc.pdf). It is also referred to as such in implementations of the spec like Linux-PAM. It is not referring to the generic concept of authentication plugins, so title case seems appropriate. James (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.