--On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 7:58 PM +0000 quanah(a)zimbra.com wrote:
> --On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 1:18 PM +0000 hyc(a)symas.com wrote:
>
>> Works as designed. The Bind op itself didn't provide any security, so it
>> contributed 0 to the session's ssf. The preceding StartTLS request
>> actually established a security layer, and it correctly logs the ssf
>> from that.
>
> I think overall the design is problematic. "ssf" is generally supposed to
> indicate the overall security of the connection, regardless of the step.
> Perhaps for 2.5 and later, we could modify the logging line to be
> something more like:
>
> May 11 02:28:06 ldap01 slapd[33839]: conn=153266 op=1 BIND
> dn="uid=zimbra,cn=admins,cn=zimbra" mech=SIMPLE bind_ssf=0 ssf=256
>
>
> So that the overall SSF of the connection is reflected, and we're
> indicating that specifically the BIND op added nothing to SSF.
>
> This would be useful for ldapi:/// connections as well, as there are zero
> ssf indicators logged at all outside of the bind op:
>
> May 12 02:30:19 ldap01 slapd[33839]: conn=169357 fd=85 ACCEPT from
> PATH=/opt/zimbra/data/ldap/state/run/ldapi
> (PATH=/opt/zimbra/data/ldap/state/run/ldapi)
> May 12 02:30:19 ldap01 slapd[33839]: conn=169357 op=0 BIND
> dn="uid=zimbra,cn=admins,cn=zimbra" method=128
> May 12 02:30:19 ldap01 slapd[33839]: conn=169357 op=0 BIND
> dn="uid=zimbra,cn=admins,cn=zimbra" mech=SIMPLE ssf=0
> May 12 02:30:19 ldap01 slapd[33839]: conn=169357 op=0 RESULT tag=97 err=0
> text=
>
>
> Even though I have:
>
> olcLocalSSF: 128
>
> in my config DB
>
> I.e., I think it would be better to show:
>
> May 12 02:30:19 ldap01 slapd[33839]: conn=169357 op=0 BIND
> dn="uid=zimbra,cn=admins,cn=zimbra" mech=SIMPLE bind_ssf=0 ssf=128
>
> in this case.
Per Howard:
we should update the SASL Bind log to use bind_ssf= as well
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration