libpwquality-devel

libpwquality-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org

15 discussions

Patch for fix parsing pam module parameters
by Владимир Сорокин 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

Hi all! I found bug in function pwquality_set_option, that cause ignoring parameters in pam module. P.S.: patch attached.

1 0

pwquality.pc has a wrong version number in version 1.2.0
by .. ink .. 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

just installed version 1.2.0 and i noticed pwquality.pc file has the following content: Name: pwquality Description: Password quality checker Version: 1.0.0 Libs: -lpwquality Shouldnt the "Version" number read 1.2.0?

2 1

make the header usable in C++ "out of the box"
by .. ink .. 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

currently,the APIs in the header file are not wrapped around "extern C" requiring a user of the library in C++ to manually wrap the header in order to link to the library in C++. It would be nice if the header would do that so that a C++ user could do below to use the library: #include <pwquality.h> instead of: extern "C" { #include <pwquality.h> }

2 1

what version of the GPL is the library released in?
by .. ink .. 07 Aug '12

07 Aug '12

pwquality.h header has the following lines in the license section. It does not say what version of the GPL the work is released under. * ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be distributed under the terms of * the GNU Public License, in which case the provisions of the GPL are * required INSTEAD OF the above restrictions. (This clause is * necessary due to a potential bad interaction between the GPL and * the restrictions contained in a BSD-style copyright.) * The "COPYING" file in the root directory has the same text but it also includes the text for GPL v2. The lack of specific version of the GPL in the above text does not tie explicitly the work to the GPL v2, a user of the work will have to assume the text refers to v2 of the GPL because thats the version that is included in the COPYING file but this requires looking at it and hence having the source code. This inference can not be made from looking at the header file because it does not contain text with any version of the GPL and i assume thats where most people will look to find out the work license. It will be nice if the above text had an explicit version of the GPL to remove any ambiguity.

2 1

libpwquality - some comments
by Matthias Clasen 21 May '12

21 May '12

Hi, I've spent an hour today making gnome-control-center use libpwquality for its password quality checking: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=676396 It worked fine in general, just a few observations: - the library would be a little easier to integrate if it installed a pc file (see the attached patch) - I've never managed to see any of the pwquality messages, because the cracklib check always triggers first and gives a 'The password fails the dictionary check' - It would be nice to give some guidance how the range [0-100] is to be interpreted - is everything below 30 considered weak ? everything about 50 strong ? That would help ensuring uniform representation of the quality Matthias

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

libpwquality-devel