[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HTCondor-users] Question about configuring a pool password
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:50:28 +0000
- From: "Kandes, Martin" <mkandes@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [HTCondor-users] Question about configuring a pool password
Okay, cool. Thanks. One last follow-up question then: Would you still have to specify the SEC_NEGOTIATION_* options if you already have the SEC_DEFAULT_* options specified? i.e., I assumed explicitly setting SEC_DEFAULT_* would implicitly also set SEC_NEGOTIATION_*.
From: HTCondor-users [htcondor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Zach Miller [zmiller@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 5:56 AM
To: HTCondor-Users Mail List
Subject: Re: [HTCondor-users] Question about configuring a pool password
On 11/15/16, 7:11 PM, "HTCondor-users on behalf of Kandes, Martin" <htcondor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of mkandes@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are there any other cases like this? For example, is there any reason to use SEC_CLIENT_* options if all daemons in a pool use only Password Authentication? My assumption is no since Password Authentication is only for daemon-to-daemon communication.
Both users and daemons use the SEC_CLIENT_* options when they connect TO an HTCondor daemon. However, it is the server-side that ultimate decides the policy, so there is generally no reason to set the SEC_CLIENT_* options unless you want to make them MORE restrictive than what the server requires.
HTCondor-users mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
You can also unsubscribe by visiting
The archives can be found at: