July 2020 - openldap-bugs

[Bug 9256] New: The ACLs required for SASL binding are not fully documented

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9256 Bug ID: 9256 Summary: The ACLs required for SASL binding are not fully documented Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kop(a)karlpinc.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 727 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=727&action=edit Patch massaging the SASL binding requirement docs While some ACL requirements for SASL binding are documented, some are not. E.g, that olcAuthzRegexp requires =x on objectClass when direct DN mapping is not documented. Other requirements can be reasoned out based on the existing documentation, but this can be very difficult when unfamiliar with all the moving parts and the places they are documented. E.g. knowing that (objectClass=*) is the default filter, and that there's _always_ _some_ filter, and connecting this with ACLs required to do search-based SASL mapping. The attached patch brings all the SASL binding requirements together in one place in the docs and makes everything explicit. The word "SASL" is included, for those searching for that keyword. I, Karl O. Pinc, hereby place the following modifications to OpenLDAP Software (and only these modifications) into the public domain. Hence, these modifications may be freely used and/or redistributed for any purpose with or without attribution and/or other notice. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year

1
27
0 / 0

[Bug 9189] New: Add GSSAPI channel-bindings support

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9189 Bug ID: 9189 Summary: Add GSSAPI channel-bindings support Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: iboukris(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Recently MS has announce they plan to enforce channel-bindings for LDAP over TLS (ADV190023). To support it on client side, we need to pass "tls-endpoint" bindings (RFC 5929) to the SASL plugin, and make use of that in GSSAPI. See also: https://github.com/cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl/pull/601 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 1 month

1
13
0 / 0

[Issue 9282] New: Syncrepl re-creates deleted entry

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9282 Issue ID: 9282 Summary: Syncrepl re-creates deleted entry Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.50 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Scenario: 2 node Multi-provider replication Add database to provider A ensure database replicates to provider B Stop provider A delete entry on provider B Start provider A Wait for provider B to reconnect to provider A Deleted entry re-appears -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 3 months

1
22
0 / 0

[Bug 9200] New: 2.4 to 2.5 upgrade documentation

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9200 Bug ID: 9200 Summary: 2.4 to 2.5 upgrade documentation Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: blocker Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For the 2.5 release, we need to document the upgrade procedures for moving from OpenLDAP 2.4 to OpenLDAP 2.5. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 7 months

1
20
0 / 0

[Bug 9220] New: Rewrite Bind and Exop result handling

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9220 Bug ID: 9220 Summary: Rewrite Bind and Exop result handling Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Bind and Exop result handling needs a rewrite so it is no longer a special case for overlays. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
6
0 / 0

[Bug 9204] New: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9204 Bug ID: 9204 Summary: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- slapo-constraint doesn't limit who can use the Relax control, beyond the global limits applied by slapd. In practice, for many modifications this means any configured constraints are advisory only. In my opinion this should be considered a bug, in design if not implementation. I expect many admins would not read the man page closely enough to realize the behaviour does technically adhere to the letter of what's written there. Either slapd should require manage privileges for the Relax control globally, or slapo-constraint should perform a check for manage privilege itself, like slapo-unique does. Quoting ando in https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5705#c4: > Well, a user with "manage" privileges on related data could bypass > constraints enforced by slapo-constraint(5) by using the "relax" > control. The rationale is that a user with manage privileges could be > able to repair an entry that needs to violate a constraint for good > reasons. Note that the user: > > - must have enough privileges to do it (manage) > > - must inform the DSA that intends to violate the constraint (by using > the control) but such privileges are currently not being required. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 9211] New: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9211 Bug ID: 9211 Summary: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The following operations can be performed by anyone having 'write' access (not even 'manage') using the Relax control: - modifying/replacing structural objectClass - adding/modifying OBSOLETE attributes Some operations are correctly restricted: - adding/modifying NO-USER-MODIFICATION attributes marked as manageable (Modification of non-conformant objects doesn't appear to be implemented at all.) In the absence of ACLs for controls, I'm of the opinion that all use of the Relax control should require manage access. The Relax draft clearly and repeatedly discusses its use cases in terms of directory _administrators_ temporarily relaxing constraints in order to accomplish a specific task. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
11
0 / 0

[Bug 9218] New: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9218 Bug ID: 9218 Summary: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- From a past discussion with hyc on 2.5 items: [13:57] <hyc> there's a nagging problem though, pcache's entry_release function needs to distinguish between its backend actually freeing the entry, or being a no-op [13:57] <hyc> so it can decide whether to return success or continue [13:58] <hyc> the patch to translucent sidesteps the question, by avoiding other overlays [13:58] <hyc> but we need to revisit this in 2.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
6
0 / 0

[Bug 9217] New: Audit all schema definitions to have official non-experimental OIDs where possible

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9217 Bug ID: 9217 Summary: Audit all schema definitions to have official non-experimental OIDs where possible Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- From a past discussion with hyc on 2.5 requirements: [09:27] <hyc> we also need to audit all of these schema defs [09:27] <hyc> we're supposed to have official, non-experimental OIDs for released schema [09:28] <hyc> accesslog is still using 666, experimental arc [09:29] <hyc> I think this means we should polish up the logschema draft, Informational status, and publish it again as final -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 9221] New: Move all replication consumer code into its own overlay

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9221 Bug ID: 9221 Summary: Move all replication consumer code into its own overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- (In relation to a discussion about slapo-chain) <hyc> anyway, the nicer ting to fix would be in 2.5, push all of the repl consumer code into its own overlay <hyc> in that case, updateref would be processed wherever the overlay was configured <hyc> so no longer tied to the frontend <hyc> it would also make it more feasible to have multiple different consumer configs in a single DB, each with their own provider URL (and thus their own updateref) <hyc> I would think we can get rid of the update ref directive entirely, just point all writes to that consumer's provider. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
5
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs July 2020