Re: [HTCondor-users] Question about configuring a pool password

[Vladimir Brik <vladimir.brik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> They do not.  While the negotiator is a daemon, it has its own authorization
> level that is separate from DAEMON.  Neither one implies the other.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "implies". Do you mean that, in 
the example above, if I were to keep the SEC_DAEMON_* lines and remove 
the SEC_NEGOTIATOR_* lines, a schedd would accept commands from 
negotiator without authentication?


Thanks,

Vlad

On 11/15/16 13:21, Zach Miller wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HTCondor-users [mailto:htcondor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of Vladimir Brik
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:02 PM
> > To: HTCondor-Users Mail List <htcondor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [HTCondor-users] Question about configuring a pool password
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > Why are SEC_NEGOTIATOR_* settings necessary? Don't SEC_DAEMON_* settings
> > imply all SEC_NEGOTIATOR_* settings?
>
> They do not.  While the negotiator is a daemon, it has its own authorization level that is separate from DAEMON.  Neither one implies the other.
>
>
> Cheers,
> -zach
>
> _______________________________________________
> HTCondor-users mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
> subject: Unsubscribe
> You can also unsubscribe by visiting
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/htcondor-users
>
> The archives can be found at:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/htcondor-users/