https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8245
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |TEST
Keywords|has_patch, OL_2_5_REQ |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8245
--- Comment #14 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Commits:
• 6d6a3300
by Ondřej Kuzník at 2020-04-06T20:44:09+00:00
ITS#8245 Use Relax control to avoid uniqueness checks
Still needs to retrieve the entry for ACL resolution until we can
restrict controls with ACLs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8528
--- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to Ondřej Kuzník from comment #5)
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 04:59:46PM +0000, openldap-its(a)openldap.org wrote:
> >> Not saying it's a bad idea, but the interactions with a delete mod might be
> >> a little confusing:
> >
> > Well, that's why I limited the scope of this bug purely to replace ops where
> > the entire structure is getting replaced. For add/delete, it must not re-order
> > anything.
>
> Not so sure about that, my thinking is a replace: attr should be equal to
>
> delete: attr
> -
> add: attr
> replaced values
>
> And you're now saying that's not the case anymore.
Actually I was agreeing with you. ;) Like in this example:
changetype: modify
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {2}
olcAccess: {1}
olcAccess: {0}
It would be a disaster to re-order things, and the correct thing to do is what
you proposed, which is to break them down into individual changes like:
changetype: modify
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {2}
-
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {1}
-
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {0}
I.e., reordering it to 0/1/2 would be very bad. ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7420
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |OL_2_5_REQ
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5705
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=9204
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8245
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=9204
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #3 from Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com> ---
Maybe my original comment was not clear enough.
Of course it is sufficient for most use-cases to just check authz-DN !=
entryDN.
My suggestion was to define a new attribute for a pwdPolicy entry for defining
authz-IDs considered to be an administrator - kind of an additional constraint
to the condition above. The syntax could be similar or the same to that already
implemented for authzTo/authzFrom attributes. But no proxy authorization
allowed at all.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7596
--- Comment #2 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
I'm not 100% sure that's the wrong number to return (according to the spec) as
we should return "the number of values in that attribute subtracted from the
value of pwdGraceAuthNLimit" and the number of values is one lower that you
would expect while we're still processing the bind.
Might be worth changing the message in the client to reflect that?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #2 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
How about deciding whether this is an administrator by checking whether the
authorization identity is the same as the entry DN? For those, we can add
pwdReset to the modify unless already specified.
The concern is there might be management frontends that use a common identity
for their LDAP requests and don't do ProxyAuthZ, do we just force them to do
the right thing now?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.