openldap-bugs August 2024

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
33 discussions

[Issue 10248] New: translucent + subordinate regression
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 03 Sep '24

03 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10248 Issue ID: 10248 Summary: translucent + subordinate regression Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.8 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mike(a)nolta.net Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1027 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1027&action=edit translucent + subordinate regression testcase, formatted for tests/data/regressions/ Hi, Attached please find a testcase for a regression we noticed in a translucent + subordinate slapd configuration. The test works in version 2.4.59, but fails in versions 2.5.5 and 2.6.8. In a nutshell, search results from the subordinate database aren't being returned, even though (judging by the logs) they appear to be found. Thanks, -Mike -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10249] New: slapo-nestgroup leak with non-nested groups
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 03 Sep '24

03 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10249 Issue ID: 10249 Summary: slapo-nestgroup leak with non-nested groups Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Searching for a member= of a group when no nesting is in place will leak memory. It seems to stem from a few `gi.gi_numDNs` tests that should most likely be against `gi.gi_DNs` instead. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10253] New: Compile failure with GnuTLS and GCC 14 on 32-bit
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 02 Sep '24

02 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10253 Issue ID: 10253 Summary: Compile failure with GnuTLS and GCC 14 on 32-bit Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Debian bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/1078822 tls_g.c fails to compile on 32-bit platforms with GCC 14: $ gcc --version gcc (Debian 14.2.0-2) 14.2.0 Copyright (C) 2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. $ gcc -dumpmachine i686-linux-gnu $ ./configure --disable-slapd --with-tls=gnutls [...] $ make [...] libtool: compile: cc -g -O2 -I../../include -I../../include -DLDAP_LIBRARY -c tls_g.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/tls_g.o tls_g.c: In function ‘tlsg_session_pinning’: tls_g.c:971:57: error: passing argument 4 of ‘gnutls_fingerprint’ from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 971 | keyhash.bv_val, &keyhash.bv_len ) < 0 ) { | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | | ber_len_t * {aka long unsigned int *} In file included from tls_g.c:44: /usr/include/gnutls/gnutls.h:2408:32: note: expected ‘size_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned int *’} but argument is of type ‘ber_len_t *’ {aka ‘long unsigned int *’} 2408 | size_t *result_size); | ~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~ make[2]: *** [Makefile:431: tls_g.lo] Error 1 It looks like the warning has always been emitted since the code was originally committed, but with GCC 14 it became an error. (See <https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-14/porting_to.html>. The last successful Debian build used GCC 13.) Quoting from the Debian bug report: > ber_len_t is typedef'ed in openldap as unsigned LBER_LEN_T, which is > AC_DEFINED as long. I'm not sure what a static AC_DEFINE in configure.ac > achieves, but that's what we have. On the other side, we have size_t, > which happens to be 32bit. Bummer. I suggest passing the 4th argument as > a temporary variable of type size_t and copying it from/to the target > structure after validating that it fits. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 10106] New: Add organization to web list of OpenLDAP support providers
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 28 Aug '24

28 Aug '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10106 Issue ID: 10106 Summary: Add organization to web list of OpenLDAP support providers Product: website Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: website Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: sudo(a)migrateq.io Target Milestone: --- Hello! This request is being opened as suggested by Quanah Gibson-Mount. Could you please add Migrateq to your OpenLDAP Support page on https://openldap.org/support Company: Migrateq Inc. Website: https://migrateq.io/support/tech/openldap Migrateq provides migrations, integrations and advanced 24/7/365 technical support for OpenLDAP and most Linux and Open Source Software. Thank you =) Richard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 10

[Issue 10254] New: Allow upgrading password hash on bind
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Aug '24

27 Aug '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10254 Issue ID: 10254 Summary: Allow upgrading password hash on bind Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: me(a)floriswesterman.nl Target Milestone: --- Many OpenLDAP installations are likely to contain relatively old password hashes such as SSHA and CRYPT, as modern alternatives such as Argon are only recent additions. Due to the nature of password hashes, it is of course not possible to "unhash" the old values and rehash them with a more modern algorithm. The presence of these old password hashes poses a liability in case of information leaks or hacks. Currently, the only way to upgrade a password hash is to wait for the user to change their password. This can be sped up by expiring passwords and forcing users to change them. However, this can be slow and frequent password rotation is no longer considered a best practice. It would be a very helpful addition to add support for upgrading a password hash on bind. This is implemented in the 389 directory server: https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/pwupgrade-on-bind.html Essentially, when a user binds, the password is checked like normal. In case of a successful bind, the proposed feature would check the hash algorithm used for the password; and in case it is not equal to the current `olcPasswordHash` value, the user-provided password is rehashed using the new algorithm and stored. This way, the old hashes are phased out more quickly, without being a disturbance to users. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 9796] New: Deprecate GnuTLS support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 20 Aug '24

20 Aug '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9796 Issue ID: 9796 Summary: Deprecate GnuTLS support Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Support for GnuTLS was added specifically for the Debian (and thus Ubuntu) due to the license objections at the time that the Debian project had for the OpenSSL license. Since that time, Debian has reclassified OpenSSL as a core library and the OpenSSL project has resolved the original complaint by licensing OpenSSL 3 and later under the Apache License v2. Thus there is no longer a reason to maintain support for GnuTLS and given the long standing concerns over the security and quality of the GnuTLS bridge in addition to the extra cost of maintaining that code, it should be marked as deprecated and removed in a future release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 10252] New: Unable to fetch groups and users at duo admin panel for enabling MFA for Ldap users
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Aug '24

14 Aug '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10252 Issue ID: 10252 Summary: Unable to fetch groups and users at duo admin panel for enabling MFA for Ldap users Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.18 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ajay41.kumar(a)airtel.com Target Milestone: --- Hi Team, I got stuck at configuring openldap server with member of overlay for groups with below requirement.We are trying to enable Multifactor authentication using duo auth proxy & duo admin panel configuration for ldap users. Ldap server is getting synced successfully with Duo admin portal but groups and users details not fetching at duo admin portal. Duo support team mentioned to change ldap configuration as mention article. Can someone help me, How i can make these changes. https://duo.my.site.com/s/article/4529?language=en_US -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10251] New: wrong type passed to getsockname
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10251 Issue ID: 10251 Summary: wrong type passed to getsockname Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- New compilers don't allow passing sockaddr_storage * to getsockname() so clients/tools/common.c no longer compiles. Fix is coming. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 1

[Issue 10250] New: syncrepl_diff_entry assumes attributes come in the same order
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10250 Issue ID: 10250 Summary: syncrepl_diff_entry assumes attributes come in the same order Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- When trying to diff an entry, syncrepl_diff_entry explicitly assumes attribute come in the same order. That's not always the case and could cause it to report a spurious rewrite of the attribute. Normally this is ok, unless the rewrite itself (not) occurring has other side-effects, when it could cause issues. (e.g. a DB with memberof inconsistencies being mysteriously repaired in some scenarios, which is how it was found). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 1

[Issue 10244] New: Fix pointer type
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Aug '24

10 Aug '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10244 Issue ID: 10244 Summary: Fix pointer type Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: zanaviska(a)tutanota.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1026 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1026&action=edit passed temprorary variable Hi I am trying to add MINGW support for another project, But each time I get an error ``` mdb.c:3921:76: error: passing argument 3 of 'GetOverlappedResult' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] note: expected 'LPDWORD' {aka 'long unsigned int *'} but argument is of type 'ssize_t *' {aka 'long long int *'} ``` So I came up with a fix for your software, with I attach in attachment -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs August 2024