Subject: Re: [LON-CAPA-dev] Hung lond

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:19:28 EST

Gerd Kortemeyer <[email-masked]> said:
> It would be great if somebody who has access to Konqueror could try with
> the old lond ON A DEVELOPMENT MACHINE if this indeed hangs lond, and
> then see if the new lond solves the problem. If verified, this should be
> moved to "STABLE" asap, since - if known to the students - this would be
> a great way to avoid homework.

Perhaps I'm not set up properly, but I am completely unable to login to my
machine using Konquerer, regardless of authentication type.  "...could not be
authenticated to use..."  

I believe I have not upgraded lond within the last two days.

Matthew

---

From: Gerd Kortemeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:26:26 -0500

Matthew,

Thanks!

Yes, Konquerer does not work with LON-CAPA. Needs to be looked at, but with
lower priority.

Was this a Kerberos authenticated username? If so, the question is now: did lond
crash after the attempt?

- Gerd.

[email-masked] wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> LON-CAPA-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mail.lon-capa.org/mailman/listinfo/lon-capa-dev

---

From: "Matthew Brian Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:31:00 -0500 (EST)

Kerberos and filesystem authentication both failed with the same message, lond
did not hang in either case.

Matthew

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hall           LON-CAPA developer         [email-masked]
123 North Kedzie Hall                    Michigan State University
------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Gerd Kortemeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:37:08 -0500

Thanks :-(

---

From: Guy Albertelli II <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:16:20 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

> Yes, Konquerer does not work with LON-CAPA. Needs to be looked at, but with

The Javascript engine doesn't properly deal with the code in
CVS:loncom/auth/londes.js

as noted it ends up submitting null bytes rather than a des encrypted
password.
-- 
[email-masked]        BM: n^20 t20 z20 qS 
Guy Albertelli -7-9-8-  O-
    I would love to but . . . it wouldn't be fair to the other Beautiful
    People.

---

From: Gerd Kortemeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:42:45 -0500

Well ... okay. The bigger problem is: if Null is not what killed the old lond,
then what was it in that request? Note that both time it was an auth call which
was the last one that was submitted. 5 Nulls? You had more Nulls than him/her.

---

From: Guy Albertelli II <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:54:03 -0500 (EST)

Hi Gerd,

> 5 Nulls? You had more Nulls than him/her.

I also did the same # of nulls.

-- 
[email-masked]        BM: n^20 t20 z20 qS 
Guy Albertelli -7-9-8-  O-
    I would love to but . . . I'm in training to be a household pest.