openldap-bugs May 2012

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

23 participants
78 discussions

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by michael＠stroeder.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms000604020701070406090000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Howard Chu wrote: > Michael Str=F6der wrote: >> hyc(a)symas.com wrote: >>> Michael Str=F6der wrote: >>>> Howard Chu wrote: >>>>> The text also states >>>>> The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword viol= ates >>>>> Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinde= r >>>>> interoperability. >>>> >>>> In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least = of a >>>> problem today. >>>> >>>>> Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates t= he specs >>>>> was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's wh= at >>>>> it's for. >>>> >>>> ??? >>>> >>>> ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPass= word'. >>>> I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. >>> >>> Wrong, ldappasswd sends a PasswordModify exop to a server. The server= may >>> implement that exop in any implementation-specific manner, and there = is no >>> guarantee that the password a server uses is ever instantiated in any= LDAP >>> entry. There is no guarantee that setting a userPassword attribute us= ing >>> ldapadd/ldapmodify will ever do anything useful for any given LDAP us= er. >> >> You're arguing based on what a LDAP server could do. I'm arguing based= on what >> OpenLDAP and other server implementations are doing for years. >=20 > ActiveDirectory is an obvious example invalidating your argument. Does MS AD support RFC 3062? AFAIK W2K3 doesn't. I don't currently have the possibility to check with most recent W2K8R2 t= hough. Anyway that's not relevant here either. We're talking about how OpenLDAP stores and checks the passwords since over a decade. Violating Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications could be avoide= d by implementing RFC 3112. But this also never happened. > Don't fix what isn't broken. With this argument you can immediately stop any progress. Maybe also a valuable statement by the OpenLDAP chief architect. Ciao, Michael. --------------ms000604020701070406090000 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFOzCC BTcwggMfoAMCAQICAwl4kDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4w HAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmlu ZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0xMDEx MTcxNTQzMzFaFw0xMjExMTYxNTQzMzFaMD8xGDAWBgNVBAMUD01pY2hhZWwgU3Ry9mRlcjEj MCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUbWljaGFlbEBzdHJvZWRlci5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA A4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDo2SKth5GhtaDrCyfGtyUG+/hAAa/J52L0NFN4SSRvTtdGf9HfWwwd NCtgae0TVGWk2lKDbXA9d5vmyIiRhuwxd90H6FLErhRBeB9G67qtw87E8WUoXt2DwPQEUTWV hqHpPadlmgFw3+i3TGQQTe3O3W9MMMd4GJNhObem2VGRuCD37OXnzBksTcq0FPJgcWAhe3d/ 0ItOkNWBqgq8Mf3p7WFBhaQ0a27BC/mKtH8fI3kPcS305imPRja69Msq3EwUZBc9ToVp6FRQ NYKjfOBybDUzVkmRZl3H8xutQP2w8Zxb8m5f7Q1BfLLrIFScfYvIDgOERxTCd4lab8+/09XH AgMBAAGjggEAMIH9MAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwVgYJYIZIAYb4QgENBEkWR1RvIGdldCB5b3Vy IG93biBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBmb3IgRlJFRSBoZWFkIG92ZXIgdG8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5DQWNl cnQub3JnMEAGA1UdJQQ5MDcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDAgYKKwYBBAGCNwoDBAYKKwYB BAGCNwoDAwYJYIZIAYb4QgQBMDIGCCsGAQUFBwEBBCYwJDAiBggrBgEFBQcwAYYWaHR0cDov L29jc3AuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRtaWNoYWVsQHN0cm9lZGVyLmNvbTANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAgEANPf/aLF41eQlvN5dEg3CFnlN//qQK7+EPIXLnHprNWLb4nBwgdPj /E+qa1umT7px4Py3VS0UTKqLmMdWftwid8MOMHWalZwrfx0Z8U3He+EdJhOSnn9vdd/ug7Xd dI/hRjLaBSq9ZhCczEUgL6vTxCYPlIoHF56y/oxSJw59vRBjvRFKXvpBZWseeRkcGACQduNH SNdWC1IqHAbQlgOS9VWQUYlm//BdaLkezRxqnQp5+KJMAcZzHpdNJ3G4SqCJ02Z3n4kk8IKZ AjgiWxisDFNsfXKDb9Ng5ntnnH2ouxrgPoNnW445tgkz50VKHstylx9s5O3G7uUTtg0J+z63 TA8xbN6kzRx7RgAUkEXhl6WEdW+3EVj5tYY38Uy8vleP+gYZfphKEmQJgIQqy9D2+gesbolT QdWYgbUYY2AHJOshskMW7pahYnFX2pZmn/ayaPc+JFJlCEqO0+DcYQjYuv6sntQgZGkok7yZ R4xMbyCp61pTrfGWOufZs/FiScJZg1IWY5qb4URH4VZZjLNMR2pFMRuE4LvgkkMRasbUv7Yv n3Lzv34lTfJKUqYW6nx//L2NS4rN63o0taPwRygnuBK4kp7EYEcwtLeanJhQoIu4b6If9rwy D7CFAp51wIewV9VtZ1Is0irNBcMVyhJogIcuIn+VWY1ff1RxySD/djMxggOUMIIDkAIBATCB gDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcx IjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1 cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDCXiQMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHoMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDUyOTIxMTU0N1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYE FPftjo2JfwDdzUByvPPFBJpEMBd4MF8GCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoG CCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBkQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGDMIGAMHkxEDAOBgNVBAoTB1Jvb3QgQ0ExHjAc BgNVBAsTFWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQ0EgQ2VydCBTaWduaW5n IEF1dGhvcml0eTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3VwcG9ydEBjYWNlcnQub3JnAgMJeJAwgZMG CyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGDoIGAMHkxEDAOBgNVBAoTB1Jvb3QgQ0ExHjAcBgNVBAsTFWh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQ0EgQ2VydCBTaWduaW5nIEF1dGhvcml0eTEh MB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3VwcG9ydEBjYWNlcnQub3JnAgMJeJAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAE ggEAqWLrqBEmQFwdUWzw3ZuQR0bnPzvAMZBb81cTmCzguvREDKdmO9vYvDVzoB/AhnnE6cE+ NYlO7uQBg7AiQSq++LoQ93tYsIjoZM44xiOxx8k+tAkhTUGEK4yJ9G86ptDRa/VSK25vC/Jg dfza7znhUF2210scAyjiG46RSRG/otIAhuMRjRKtvbC5jD5luJeJxePFpWR/V7+qKWmVvyJU mIGY90XdKmhY3b8XNWecfghap8V4NVNWzLuNxwH6vW8ym8+W4eZ/EsMsJ7+ht7HqgE71hjtj QtDfdcEGGww1Ch0tGj7HbynRm7pf2airOQ3j8GxMwFkkq/If8+4jqrNC1gAAAAAAAA== --------------ms000604020701070406090000--

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by quanah＠zimbra.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

--On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:38 PM +0000 michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: > Well, you're the OpenLDAP god. So you can arbitrarly decide whatever you > want. (But you shouldn't wonder why there's no active OpenLDAP community.) Comments like this weaken any point you are trying to make, serve no purpose, and are obnoxious. Your emails would be better served without them. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by hyc＠symas.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

Michael Ströder wrote: > hyc(a)symas.com wrote: >> Michael Ströder wrote: >>> Howard Chu wrote: >>>> The text also states >>>> The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword violates >>>> Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinder >>>> interoperability. >>> >>> In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least of a >>> problem today. >>> >>>> Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates the specs >>>> was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's what it's for. >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPassword'. >>> I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. >> >> Wrong, ldappasswd sends a PasswordModify exop to a server. The server may >> implement that exop in any implementation-specific manner, and there is no >> guarantee that the password a server uses is ever instantiated in any LDAP >> entry. There is no guarantee that setting a userPassword attribute using >> ldapadd/ldapmodify will ever do anything useful for any given LDAP user. > > You're arguing based on what a LDAP server could do. I'm arguing based on what > OpenLDAP and other server implementations are doing for years. ActiveDirectory is an obvious example invalidating your argument. > None of what you said in this thread is a real argument against adding SHA-2 > hash algos to the core. Still you did not answer why SHA-1 is in and SHA-2 is out. At present there is no need to change anything in the core since SHA-2 support can be dynamically loaded. Don't fix what isn't broken. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by michael＠stroeder.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > Michael Ströder wrote: >> Howard Chu wrote: >>> The text also states >>> The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword violates >>> Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinder >>> interoperability. >> >> In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least of a >> problem today. >> >>> Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates the specs >>> was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's what it's for. >> >> ??? >> >> ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPassword'. >> I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. > > Wrong, ldappasswd sends a PasswordModify exop to a server. The server may > implement that exop in any implementation-specific manner, and there is no > guarantee that the password a server uses is ever instantiated in any LDAP > entry. There is no guarantee that setting a userPassword attribute using > ldapadd/ldapmodify will ever do anything useful for any given LDAP user. You're arguing based on what a LDAP server could do. I'm arguing based on what OpenLDAP and other server implementations are doing for years. None of what you said in this thread is a real argument against adding SHA-2 hash algos to the core. Still you did not answer why SHA-1 is in and SHA-2 is out. Well, you're the OpenLDAP god. So you can arbitrarly decide whatever you want. (But you shouldn't wonder why there's no active OpenLDAP community.) Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by hyc＠symas.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

Michael Ströder wrote: > Howard Chu wrote: >> The text also states >> The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword violates >> Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinder >> interoperability. > > In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least of a > problem today. > >> Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates the specs >> was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's what it's for. > > ??? > > ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPassword'. > I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. Wrong, ldappasswd sends a PasswordModify exop to a server. The server may implement that exop in any implementation-specific manner, and there is no guarantee that the password a server uses is ever instantiated in any LDAP entry. There is no guarantee that setting a userPassword attribute using ldapadd/ldapmodify will ever do anything useful for any given LDAP user. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by michael＠stroeder.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms050402080405010103060108 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Howard Chu wrote: > The text also states > The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword violates > Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinder > interoperability. In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least of a problem today. > Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates the s= pecs > was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's what i= t's for. ??? ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPassword'= =2E I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. So what are you really trying to say? Ciao, Michael. --------------ms050402080405010103060108 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFOzCC BTcwggMfoAMCAQICAwl4kDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4w HAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmlu ZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0xMDEx MTcxNTQzMzFaFw0xMjExMTYxNTQzMzFaMD8xGDAWBgNVBAMUD01pY2hhZWwgU3Ry9mRlcjEj MCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUbWljaGFlbEBzdHJvZWRlci5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA A4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDo2SKth5GhtaDrCyfGtyUG+/hAAa/J52L0NFN4SSRvTtdGf9HfWwwd NCtgae0TVGWk2lKDbXA9d5vmyIiRhuwxd90H6FLErhRBeB9G67qtw87E8WUoXt2DwPQEUTWV hqHpPadlmgFw3+i3TGQQTe3O3W9MMMd4GJNhObem2VGRuCD37OXnzBksTcq0FPJgcWAhe3d/ 0ItOkNWBqgq8Mf3p7WFBhaQ0a27BC/mKtH8fI3kPcS305imPRja69Msq3EwUZBc9ToVp6FRQ NYKjfOBybDUzVkmRZl3H8xutQP2w8Zxb8m5f7Q1BfLLrIFScfYvIDgOERxTCd4lab8+/09XH AgMBAAGjggEAMIH9MAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwVgYJYIZIAYb4QgENBEkWR1RvIGdldCB5b3Vy IG93biBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBmb3IgRlJFRSBoZWFkIG92ZXIgdG8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5DQWNl cnQub3JnMEAGA1UdJQQ5MDcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDAgYKKwYBBAGCNwoDBAYKKwYB BAGCNwoDAwYJYIZIAYb4QgQBMDIGCCsGAQUFBwEBBCYwJDAiBggrBgEFBQcwAYYWaHR0cDov L29jc3AuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRtaWNoYWVsQHN0cm9lZGVyLmNvbTANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAgEANPf/aLF41eQlvN5dEg3CFnlN//qQK7+EPIXLnHprNWLb4nBwgdPj /E+qa1umT7px4Py3VS0UTKqLmMdWftwid8MOMHWalZwrfx0Z8U3He+EdJhOSnn9vdd/ug7Xd dI/hRjLaBSq9ZhCczEUgL6vTxCYPlIoHF56y/oxSJw59vRBjvRFKXvpBZWseeRkcGACQduNH SNdWC1IqHAbQlgOS9VWQUYlm//BdaLkezRxqnQp5+KJMAcZzHpdNJ3G4SqCJ02Z3n4kk8IKZ AjgiWxisDFNsfXKDb9Ng5ntnnH2ouxrgPoNnW445tgkz50VKHstylx9s5O3G7uUTtg0J+z63 TA8xbN6kzRx7RgAUkEXhl6WEdW+3EVj5tYY38Uy8vleP+gYZfphKEmQJgIQqy9D2+gesbolT QdWYgbUYY2AHJOshskMW7pahYnFX2pZmn/ayaPc+JFJlCEqO0+DcYQjYuv6sntQgZGkok7yZ R4xMbyCp61pTrfGWOufZs/FiScJZg1IWY5qb4URH4VZZjLNMR2pFMRuE4LvgkkMRasbUv7Yv n3Lzv34lTfJKUqYW6nx//L2NS4rN63o0taPwRygnuBK4kp7EYEcwtLeanJhQoIu4b6If9rwy D7CFAp51wIewV9VtZ1Is0irNBcMVyhJogIcuIn+VWY1ff1RxySD/djMxggOUMIIDkAIBATCB gDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcx IjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1 cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDCXiQMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHoMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDUyOTE4MTEyMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYE FMxpg47lo/Kju6s3IV/LCMAeyzViMF8GCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoG CCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBkQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGDMIGAMHkxEDAOBgNVBAoTB1Jvb3QgQ0ExHjAc BgNVBAsTFWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQ0EgQ2VydCBTaWduaW5n IEF1dGhvcml0eTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3VwcG9ydEBjYWNlcnQub3JnAgMJeJAwgZMG CyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGDoIGAMHkxEDAOBgNVBAoTB1Jvb3QgQ0ExHjAcBgNVBAsTFWh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQ0EgQ2VydCBTaWduaW5nIEF1dGhvcml0eTEh MB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3VwcG9ydEBjYWNlcnQub3JnAgMJeJAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAE ggEAPDeuZINq0dhCIixcpzDn15b8usj8fAjOx/IOUdH3GEfMwNcC7Qi4lEDwuT1hvriqLT9x RTO4CcPCm5GZ2A8MWqayf+oRZtfZmU6ueLNPS08D4fMIkdU5DScFGmSFajm/qVfP8V4iwWur xn4xtYjEXY6SqD2vZK0rYGrr9KS72pNunNEXzUkI6SmGVDp5Q9463FkoBQj9DFYrLSe5iBPO CVNZlHsnTfWvW3Cm4SP7x2VFoqpT6snisrYWv3hcJjSinsBCEnW+qwAcuCpuByMWA/hFr9vj OBz3Y1W7obMI6DUxdBq4ECdDWTDoqLsCfEJGLeoq1oQ9n5r2UNDSPnPJ9QAAAAAAAA== --------------ms050402080405010103060108--

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by hyc＠symas.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

Michael Ströder wrote: > hyc(a)symas.com wrote: >> Why should X user ever need to run this tool to generate a value? > >>From slappasswd(8): > > DESCRIPTION > Slappasswd is used to generate an userPassword value suitable > for use with ldapmodify(1), slapd.conf(5) rootpw configuration > directive or the slapd-config(5) olcRootPW configuration directive. > > Do you want to restrict this text regarding ldapmodify(1) only for the cases > that the slappasswd user has also write access to back-config? We could probably delete that ldapmodify(1) reference. Technically it has always been wrong, since there's never been any guarantee that an LDAP user's password was ever stored in any user-accessible attribute. > Of course your are the OpenLDAP boss. You can change everything to make it > work for you. But it breaks existing operational procedures for other people. The text also states The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword violates Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinder interoperability. Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates the specs was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's what it's for. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by quanah＠zimbra.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

--On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:49 PM +0000 michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: > hyc(a)symas.com wrote: >> Why should X user ever need to run this tool to generate a value? > > From slappasswd(8): > > DESCRIPTION > Slappasswd is used to generate an userPassword value suitable > for use with ldapmodify(1), slapd.conf(5) rootpw configuration > directive or the slapd-config(5) olcRootPW configuration directive. > > Do you want to restrict this text regarding ldapmodify(1) only for the > cases that the slappasswd user has also write access to back-config? The tool has allowed the ability to generate password values for years. It is not uncommon to use it to do just that. I've often used it to generate base-64 encoded SSHA values to push into LDIF I will be writing to the server via ldapmodify. That should not require access to cn=config/slapd.conf. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by michael＠stroeder.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > Why should X user ever need to run this tool to generate a value? >From slappasswd(8): DESCRIPTION Slappasswd is used to generate an userPassword value suitable for use with ldapmodify(1), slapd.conf(5) rootpw configuration directive or the slapd-config(5) olcRootPW configuration directive. Do you want to restrict this text regarding ldapmodify(1) only for the cases that the slappasswd user has also write access to back-config? Of course your are the OpenLDAP boss. You can change everything to make it work for you. But it breaks existing operational procedures for other people. Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by michael＠stroeder.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

Howard Chu wrote: > michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: >> Doesn't this ask for fully integrating SHA-2 password support into >> libraries/liblutil/passwd.c? > > Clearly you haven't thought this through. Maybe. But one question: Why is SHA-1 in the core and SHA-2 isn't? IMO that's just an arbitrary choice. > No, because that doesn't solve the problem of how to use other contrib passwd > modules. If you come up with another overall solution to avoid reading the config when using slappasswd I'm of course fine with that too. Ciao, Michael.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs May 2012