PAM: Authentication failure, with valid password












4














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









share|improve this question
























  • 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
















4














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









share|improve this question
























  • 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














4












4








4


1





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









share|improve this question















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 7 '18 at 14:46

























asked Feb 6 '18 at 23:23









Paul Knopf

2561310




2561310












  • 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


















  • 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
















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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














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





share|improve this answer

















  • 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



















0














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






share|improve this answer





















    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    6














    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





    share|improve this answer

















    • 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
















    6














    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





    share|improve this answer

















    • 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














    6












    6








    6






    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





    share|improve this answer












    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






    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    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














    • 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













    0














    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






    share|improve this answer


























      0














      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






      share|improve this answer
























        0












        0








        0






        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






        share|improve this answer












        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







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        Daniel Sokolowski

        1155




        1155






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            CARDNET

            Boot-repair Failure: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386

            濃尾地震