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.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9303
Issue ID: 9303
Summary: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
For OpenLDAP 2.6, we should investigate adding support for WolfSSL as an
alternative to OpenSSL.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9367
Issue ID: 9367
Summary: back-mdb: encryption support
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Need to add encryption support to the back-mdb backend, depends on issue#9364
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9813
Issue ID: 9813
Summary: Incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy
overlays
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: thierry.pubellier(a)paris.fr
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
We are planning to use OpenLDAP as a proxy for some users in our Active
Directory servers, using remoteauth overlay.
We want this OpenLDAP instance to also implement an account lockout policy,
preventing the lockout on our internal Active Directory servers.
But there seems to be an incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy
overlays : remoteauth won't remote authenticate a user if local userPassword
attribute exists, while ppolicy overlay needs this attribute.
Could there be a configuration parameter in ppolicy to allow lockout
checks/modifications (which seemed to be the default behavior of OpenLDAP
before ITS#7089) ?
I can provide a patch if allowed.
Thanks by advance,
Best regards,
Thierry
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9343
Issue ID: 9343
Summary: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL
filter
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: ---
Currently, ppolicy only supports a single global default policy, and past that
any policies must be manually added to a given user entry if they are supposed
to have something other than the default policy.
Also, some sites want no default policy, and only a specific subset to have a
policy applied to them.
For both of these cases, it would be helpful if it were possible to configure a
policy to apply to a set of users via a URL similar to the way we handle
creating groups of users in dynlist
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9652
Issue ID: 9652
Summary: Add "tee" capability to load balancer
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: lloadd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: mhardin(a)symas.com
Target Milestone: ---
This is a request for an enhancement that would add a "tee" or "fan-out"
capability to load balancer, where received operations are sent to two or more
destinations simultaneously.
The primary goal or the enhancement is to make it possible to keep multiple
independent and likely dissimilar directory systems in lock-step with each
other over hours, days, or possibly even weeks.
The enhancement would not necessarily need to include a mechanism for
converging the target systems should they become out of sync.
This is not intended to be a replication solution, rather it is viewed more as
a "copy" solution intended to be used for specific short-term tasks that need
multiple directory systems to be exactly synchronized but where replication is
not desirable or even possible.
At least two uses come to mind:
1. Test harnesses, evaluating side-by-side operation of separate directory
systems over time
2. Directory system transition validation harnesses
3. (maybe) Part of a test harness to record or replay LDAP workloads
* Other uses?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9393
Issue ID: 9393
Summary: Provider a LDAP filter validation function
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.56
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: best(a)univention.de
Target Milestone: ---
In many situations I need to validate if a user submitted LDAP filter has valid
syntax.
It seems there is no official function to check this.
Could you provide one?
libraries/libldap/filter.c: ldap_pvt_put_filter() can be used as a basis.
--
My current workaround is using a unconnected ldap connection and do a search
with that filter. This yields a FILTER_ERROR (invalid filter) or a SERVER_DOWN
error (invalid filter).
See also:
https://github.com/python-ldap/python-ldap/pull/272
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9667
Issue ID: 9667
Summary: 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade documentation
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: documentation
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Need to document any upgrade information for going from 2.6 to 2.7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.