FC5 'pam_opensc' RPM needed - Security

This is a discussion on FC5 'pam_opensc' RPM needed - Security ; I upgraded my primary PC from FC4 to FC5. All went well, except when I tried to setup my eToken. I found that there was no 'pam_opensc' RPM available in the FC5 repositories. I tried to force the FC4 RPM, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: FC5 'pam_opensc' RPM needed

  1. FC5 'pam_opensc' RPM needed

    I upgraded my primary PC from FC4 to FC5. All went well, except when I
    tried to setup my eToken. I found that there was no 'pam_opensc'
    RPM available in the FC5 repositories. I tried to force the FC4
    RPM, but the FC5 would not use it. FC5 complained about
    missing various FC4 packages. Anyone got an idea where I can obtain
    this for FC5? Google has only turned up ones for Fedora Core 4 and
    older. Any ideas?



  2. Re: FC5 'pam_opensc' RPM needed

    In comp.os.linux.security James T. :
    > I upgraded my primary PC from FC4 to FC5. All went well, except when I
    > tried to setup my eToken. I found that there was no 'pam_opensc'
    > RPM available in the FC5 repositories. I tried to force the FC4
    > RPM, but the FC5 would not use it. FC5 complained about
    > missing various FC4 packages. Anyone got an idea where I can obtain
    > this for FC5? Google has only turned up ones for Fedora Core 4 and
    > older. Any ideas?


    Fill in a bug report:

    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/

    --
    Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
    mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
    #bofh excuse 81: Please excuse me, I have to circuit an AC
    line through my head to get this database working.

  3. Re: FC5 'pam_opensc' RPM needed

    On 29.03.2006, James T. wrote:
    > I upgraded my primary PC from FC4 to FC5. All went well, except when I
    > tried to setup my eToken. I found that there was no 'pam_opensc'
    > RPM available in the FC5 repositories. I tried to force the FC4
    > RPM, but the FC5 would not use it. FC5 complained about
    > missing various FC4 packages. Anyone got an idea where I can obtain
    > this for FC5? Google has only turned up ones for Fedora Core 4 and
    > older. Any ideas?


    Maybe try a src.rpm? It should build fine, at most with some adjustment
    in .spec.

    --
    Feel free to correct my English
    Stanislaw Klekot

  4. Re: FC5 'pam_opensc' RPM needed

    On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:56:53 +0000, Stachu 'Dozzie' K. wrote:

    > Maybe try a src.rpm? It should build fine, at most with some adjustment
    > in .spec.


    I guess I'll have to give that a try. Really don't want to go that
    route, because I typically mess up compiling source code. And this tends
    to cause me to spend large amounts of hours trying to get packages working
    that way - many times in the end without success. The pre-compiled RPMs
    are just way easier/faster to get the job done correctly.

    In the mean time, I found I had the original key files in an old backup,
    from when I uploaded them onto my eToken - so I'm using those files on a
    flash drive as a temporary measure.

    I know using a flash dive is not as secure as using the eToken, but at
    least they are not stored on the hard drive when I'm not in the office &
    I'm the only one with access to that PC - so I would think it's better
    then nothing.



  5. Re: FC5 'pam_opensc' RPM needed

    On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:56:53 +0000, Stachu 'Dozzie' K. wrote

    > Maybe try a src.rpm? It should build fine, at most with som

    adjustmen
    > in .spec
    >

    I guess I'll have to give that a try. Really don't want to go tha
    route, because I typically mess up compiling source code. And thi
    tend
    to cause me to spend large amounts of hours trying to get package
    workin
    that way - many times in the end without success. The pre-compile
    RPM
    are just way easier/faster to get the job done correctly

    In the mean time, I found I had the original key files in an ol
    backup
    from when I uploaded them onto my eToken - so I'm using those files o

    flash drive as a temporary measure

    I know using a flash dive is not as secure as using the eToken, but a
    least they are not stored on the hard drive when I'm not in the offic

    I'm the only one with access to that PC - so I would think it's bette
    then nothing


+ Reply to Thread