PAM: Authentication failure, with valid password
Command
pamtester -v auth pknopf authenticate
pamtester: invoking pam_start(auth, pknopf, ...)
pamtester: performing operation - authenticate
Password:
pamtester: Authentication failure
journctl
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH unix_chkpwd[31998]: check pass; user unknown
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH unix_chkpwd[31998]: password check failed for user (pknopf)
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH pamtester[31997]: pam_unix(auth:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=1000 euid=1000 tty= ruser= rhost= user=pknopf
As it stands right now, every lock screen will prevent me from "unlocking" (KDE lock screen, i3lock
, etc).
If I start i3lock
as sudo
, I can then properly type in the root password to unlock the screen. However, if I run it as normal user, and I can't use normal user or root password to unlock.
Here is my PAM config for i3lock
.
#
# PAM configuration file for the i3lock screen locker. By default, it includes
# the 'system-auth' configuration file (see /etc/pam.d/login)
#
auth include system-auth
Running ls -l /etc/passwd /etc/shadow /etc/group
shows
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 803 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/group
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1005 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/passwd
-rw------- 1 root root 713 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/shadow
This is a fresh install of Arch, so I don't think the configuration is too wonky. What should I be looking for to debug this?
Running ls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
shows
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
pam
add a comment |
Command
pamtester -v auth pknopf authenticate
pamtester: invoking pam_start(auth, pknopf, ...)
pamtester: performing operation - authenticate
Password:
pamtester: Authentication failure
journctl
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH unix_chkpwd[31998]: check pass; user unknown
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH unix_chkpwd[31998]: password check failed for user (pknopf)
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH pamtester[31997]: pam_unix(auth:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=1000 euid=1000 tty= ruser= rhost= user=pknopf
As it stands right now, every lock screen will prevent me from "unlocking" (KDE lock screen, i3lock
, etc).
If I start i3lock
as sudo
, I can then properly type in the root password to unlock the screen. However, if I run it as normal user, and I can't use normal user or root password to unlock.
Here is my PAM config for i3lock
.
#
# PAM configuration file for the i3lock screen locker. By default, it includes
# the 'system-auth' configuration file (see /etc/pam.d/login)
#
auth include system-auth
Running ls -l /etc/passwd /etc/shadow /etc/group
shows
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 803 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/group
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1005 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/passwd
-rw------- 1 root root 713 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/shadow
This is a fresh install of Arch, so I don't think the configuration is too wonky. What should I be looking for to debug this?
Running ls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
shows
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
pam
You've a user accountpknopf
in your/etc/passwd
, etc., and it can log in?
– roaima
Feb 6 '18 at 23:45
My account is in /etc/passwd.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 0:26
I can "pamtester auth pknopf authenticate" with (running as) root user, but not with pknopf user.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 7:07
Result ofls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
added to your question, please.
– roaima
Feb 7 '18 at 8:45
Updated question to include the output.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 14:46
add a comment |
Command
pamtester -v auth pknopf authenticate
pamtester: invoking pam_start(auth, pknopf, ...)
pamtester: performing operation - authenticate
Password:
pamtester: Authentication failure
journctl
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH unix_chkpwd[31998]: check pass; user unknown
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH unix_chkpwd[31998]: password check failed for user (pknopf)
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH pamtester[31997]: pam_unix(auth:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=1000 euid=1000 tty= ruser= rhost= user=pknopf
As it stands right now, every lock screen will prevent me from "unlocking" (KDE lock screen, i3lock
, etc).
If I start i3lock
as sudo
, I can then properly type in the root password to unlock the screen. However, if I run it as normal user, and I can't use normal user or root password to unlock.
Here is my PAM config for i3lock
.
#
# PAM configuration file for the i3lock screen locker. By default, it includes
# the 'system-auth' configuration file (see /etc/pam.d/login)
#
auth include system-auth
Running ls -l /etc/passwd /etc/shadow /etc/group
shows
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 803 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/group
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1005 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/passwd
-rw------- 1 root root 713 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/shadow
This is a fresh install of Arch, so I don't think the configuration is too wonky. What should I be looking for to debug this?
Running ls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
shows
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
pam
Command
pamtester -v auth pknopf authenticate
pamtester: invoking pam_start(auth, pknopf, ...)
pamtester: performing operation - authenticate
Password:
pamtester: Authentication failure
journctl
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH unix_chkpwd[31998]: check pass; user unknown
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH unix_chkpwd[31998]: password check failed for user (pknopf)
Feb 06 13:22:17 PAULS-ARCH pamtester[31997]: pam_unix(auth:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=1000 euid=1000 tty= ruser= rhost= user=pknopf
As it stands right now, every lock screen will prevent me from "unlocking" (KDE lock screen, i3lock
, etc).
If I start i3lock
as sudo
, I can then properly type in the root password to unlock the screen. However, if I run it as normal user, and I can't use normal user or root password to unlock.
Here is my PAM config for i3lock
.
#
# PAM configuration file for the i3lock screen locker. By default, it includes
# the 'system-auth' configuration file (see /etc/pam.d/login)
#
auth include system-auth
Running ls -l /etc/passwd /etc/shadow /etc/group
shows
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 803 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/group
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1005 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/passwd
-rw------- 1 root root 713 Feb 6 14:16 /etc/shadow
This is a fresh install of Arch, so I don't think the configuration is too wonky. What should I be looking for to debug this?
Running ls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
shows
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
pam
pam
edited Feb 7 '18 at 14:46
asked Feb 6 '18 at 23:23
Paul Knopf
2561310
2561310
You've a user accountpknopf
in your/etc/passwd
, etc., and it can log in?
– roaima
Feb 6 '18 at 23:45
My account is in /etc/passwd.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 0:26
I can "pamtester auth pknopf authenticate" with (running as) root user, but not with pknopf user.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 7:07
Result ofls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
added to your question, please.
– roaima
Feb 7 '18 at 8:45
Updated question to include the output.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 14:46
add a comment |
You've a user accountpknopf
in your/etc/passwd
, etc., and it can log in?
– roaima
Feb 6 '18 at 23:45
My account is in /etc/passwd.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 0:26
I can "pamtester auth pknopf authenticate" with (running as) root user, but not with pknopf user.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 7:07
Result ofls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
added to your question, please.
– roaima
Feb 7 '18 at 8:45
Updated question to include the output.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 14:46
You've a user account
pknopf
in your /etc/passwd
, etc., and it can log in?– roaima
Feb 6 '18 at 23:45
You've a user account
pknopf
in your /etc/passwd
, etc., and it can log in?– roaima
Feb 6 '18 at 23:45
My account is in /etc/passwd.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 0:26
My account is in /etc/passwd.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 0:26
I can "pamtester auth pknopf authenticate" with (running as) root user, but not with pknopf user.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 7:07
I can "pamtester auth pknopf authenticate" with (running as) root user, but not with pknopf user.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 7:07
Result of
ls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
added to your question, please.– roaima
Feb 7 '18 at 8:45
Result of
ls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
added to your question, please.– roaima
Feb 7 '18 at 8:45
Updated question to include the output.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 14:46
Updated question to include the output.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 14:46
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Your system installation appears to be broken. For some reason the file /sbin/unix_chkpwd
has lost the privilege bits I would expect to see.
Fix the permissions with the following command, run as root:
chmod u+s /sbin/chkpwd
And verify the permissions are now as follows (see the s
bit in the user permissions):
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
On my Raspbian distribution the permissions are set slightly differently (and more restrictively). If the change described above does not work, carefully change the permissions on these two files and see if this helps (the group name does not matter too much as long as it's the same in both cases):
-rw-r----- 1 root shadow 1354 Dec 6 13:02 /etc/shadow
-rwxr-sr-x 1 root shadow 30424 Mar 27 2017 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
1
This as my issue. It was a result of Docker stripping that privilege bit. github.com/moby/moby/issues/36239
– Paul Knopf
Jun 12 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
On a Debian machine, in my case I had to add exim4 user to the shadow
group.
usermod -a -G shadow Debian-exim
PAM: On Debian systems the PAM modules run as the same user as the
calling program, so they cannot do anything you could not do yourself,
and in particular cannot access /etc/shadow unless the user is in
group shadow. - If you want to use /etc/shadow for Exim's SMTP AUTH
you will need to run exim as group shadow. Only exim4-daemon-heavy is
linked against libpam. We suggest using saslauthd instead.
http://lira.no-ip.org:8080/doc/exim4-base/README.Debian.html
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f422411%2fpam-authentication-failure-with-valid-password%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Your system installation appears to be broken. For some reason the file /sbin/unix_chkpwd
has lost the privilege bits I would expect to see.
Fix the permissions with the following command, run as root:
chmod u+s /sbin/chkpwd
And verify the permissions are now as follows (see the s
bit in the user permissions):
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
On my Raspbian distribution the permissions are set slightly differently (and more restrictively). If the change described above does not work, carefully change the permissions on these two files and see if this helps (the group name does not matter too much as long as it's the same in both cases):
-rw-r----- 1 root shadow 1354 Dec 6 13:02 /etc/shadow
-rwxr-sr-x 1 root shadow 30424 Mar 27 2017 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
1
This as my issue. It was a result of Docker stripping that privilege bit. github.com/moby/moby/issues/36239
– Paul Knopf
Jun 12 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
Your system installation appears to be broken. For some reason the file /sbin/unix_chkpwd
has lost the privilege bits I would expect to see.
Fix the permissions with the following command, run as root:
chmod u+s /sbin/chkpwd
And verify the permissions are now as follows (see the s
bit in the user permissions):
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
On my Raspbian distribution the permissions are set slightly differently (and more restrictively). If the change described above does not work, carefully change the permissions on these two files and see if this helps (the group name does not matter too much as long as it's the same in both cases):
-rw-r----- 1 root shadow 1354 Dec 6 13:02 /etc/shadow
-rwxr-sr-x 1 root shadow 30424 Mar 27 2017 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
1
This as my issue. It was a result of Docker stripping that privilege bit. github.com/moby/moby/issues/36239
– Paul Knopf
Jun 12 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
Your system installation appears to be broken. For some reason the file /sbin/unix_chkpwd
has lost the privilege bits I would expect to see.
Fix the permissions with the following command, run as root:
chmod u+s /sbin/chkpwd
And verify the permissions are now as follows (see the s
bit in the user permissions):
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
On my Raspbian distribution the permissions are set slightly differently (and more restrictively). If the change described above does not work, carefully change the permissions on these two files and see if this helps (the group name does not matter too much as long as it's the same in both cases):
-rw-r----- 1 root shadow 1354 Dec 6 13:02 /etc/shadow
-rwxr-sr-x 1 root shadow 30424 Mar 27 2017 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
Your system installation appears to be broken. For some reason the file /sbin/unix_chkpwd
has lost the privilege bits I would expect to see.
Fix the permissions with the following command, run as root:
chmod u+s /sbin/chkpwd
And verify the permissions are now as follows (see the s
bit in the user permissions):
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 31392 Jun 9 2016 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
On my Raspbian distribution the permissions are set slightly differently (and more restrictively). If the change described above does not work, carefully change the permissions on these two files and see if this helps (the group name does not matter too much as long as it's the same in both cases):
-rw-r----- 1 root shadow 1354 Dec 6 13:02 /etc/shadow
-rwxr-sr-x 1 root shadow 30424 Mar 27 2017 /sbin/unix_chkpwd
answered Feb 7 '18 at 15:00
roaima
42.9k551116
42.9k551116
1
This as my issue. It was a result of Docker stripping that privilege bit. github.com/moby/moby/issues/36239
– Paul Knopf
Jun 12 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
1
This as my issue. It was a result of Docker stripping that privilege bit. github.com/moby/moby/issues/36239
– Paul Knopf
Jun 12 '18 at 16:08
1
1
This as my issue. It was a result of Docker stripping that privilege bit. github.com/moby/moby/issues/36239
– Paul Knopf
Jun 12 '18 at 16:08
This as my issue. It was a result of Docker stripping that privilege bit. github.com/moby/moby/issues/36239
– Paul Knopf
Jun 12 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
On a Debian machine, in my case I had to add exim4 user to the shadow
group.
usermod -a -G shadow Debian-exim
PAM: On Debian systems the PAM modules run as the same user as the
calling program, so they cannot do anything you could not do yourself,
and in particular cannot access /etc/shadow unless the user is in
group shadow. - If you want to use /etc/shadow for Exim's SMTP AUTH
you will need to run exim as group shadow. Only exim4-daemon-heavy is
linked against libpam. We suggest using saslauthd instead.
http://lira.no-ip.org:8080/doc/exim4-base/README.Debian.html
add a comment |
On a Debian machine, in my case I had to add exim4 user to the shadow
group.
usermod -a -G shadow Debian-exim
PAM: On Debian systems the PAM modules run as the same user as the
calling program, so they cannot do anything you could not do yourself,
and in particular cannot access /etc/shadow unless the user is in
group shadow. - If you want to use /etc/shadow for Exim's SMTP AUTH
you will need to run exim as group shadow. Only exim4-daemon-heavy is
linked against libpam. We suggest using saslauthd instead.
http://lira.no-ip.org:8080/doc/exim4-base/README.Debian.html
add a comment |
On a Debian machine, in my case I had to add exim4 user to the shadow
group.
usermod -a -G shadow Debian-exim
PAM: On Debian systems the PAM modules run as the same user as the
calling program, so they cannot do anything you could not do yourself,
and in particular cannot access /etc/shadow unless the user is in
group shadow. - If you want to use /etc/shadow for Exim's SMTP AUTH
you will need to run exim as group shadow. Only exim4-daemon-heavy is
linked against libpam. We suggest using saslauthd instead.
http://lira.no-ip.org:8080/doc/exim4-base/README.Debian.html
On a Debian machine, in my case I had to add exim4 user to the shadow
group.
usermod -a -G shadow Debian-exim
PAM: On Debian systems the PAM modules run as the same user as the
calling program, so they cannot do anything you could not do yourself,
and in particular cannot access /etc/shadow unless the user is in
group shadow. - If you want to use /etc/shadow for Exim's SMTP AUTH
you will need to run exim as group shadow. Only exim4-daemon-heavy is
linked against libpam. We suggest using saslauthd instead.
http://lira.no-ip.org:8080/doc/exim4-base/README.Debian.html
answered 1 hour ago
Daniel Sokolowski
1155
1155
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f422411%2fpam-authentication-failure-with-valid-password%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
You've a user account
pknopf
in your/etc/passwd
, etc., and it can log in?– roaima
Feb 6 '18 at 23:45
My account is in /etc/passwd.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 0:26
I can "pamtester auth pknopf authenticate" with (running as) root user, but not with pknopf user.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 7:07
Result of
ls -l /sbin/unix_chkpwd
added to your question, please.– roaima
Feb 7 '18 at 8:45
Updated question to include the output.
– Paul Knopf
Feb 7 '18 at 14:46