[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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