Talk:TACACS+
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The contents of the TACACS+ page were merged into TACACS and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
[Untitled][edit]
Hi,
I have a problem, I want to authenticate login to my website with TACACAS+, the websever is running Apache and is running on FreeBSD 4.10 and the TACACAS+ server is installed on a FreeBSD machine.
I am totally confused as to how to go about this.. Can anyone help ??
Thanks & Regards, Amit Bhasin amit.bhasin@rediffmail.com
- You must be stupid. This is encyclopedia, not support site. 79.64.34.22 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry cannot help
"Most administrators recommend using TACACS+ because TCP is seen as a more reliable protocol."
Who says that? Who is these "most administrators"? Such statement must be able to be verified with a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.6.144 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Overlapping[edit]
Sections Software implementations and External links partially contain the same information. --193.6.17.219 (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 24.37.50.182 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Proprietary?[edit]
www.Tacacs.net says in the FAQ section "The TACACS+ protocol is not proprietary. It is an open standard defined by RFC 1492 and IETF draft." and i read that it was created by the US Army and then upgraded by Cisco Systems. What version can we believe in ? 24.37.50.182 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- TACACS+ is not proprietary. It was indeed an IETF draft. Somebody didn't do his homework. I've fixed the article. -- 79.225.12.69 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- While the second paragraph of the article shows TACACS+ as "open, publicly documented", the second paragraph of protocol details looks like it describes TACACS+ as "a Cisco proprietary enhancement to the original TACACS protocol." Perhaps some more cleanup is needed to decide one way or the other. Alan Larson (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Merging topics[edit]
Is there any consensus on whether to merge the TACACS, TACACS+, XTACACS protocols under the TACACS article, where each separate protocol will be given some sections for description? I'm personally for it, because it will be simpler for users searching for information on either or both and reduce redundant information between the two articles. But I also understand these two protocols are distinct, so I don't want to jump the gun on this... Ozhu (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with this - it would have made my search one link less deep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.186.150 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)