openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20953 discussions

[Issue 10323] New: Starttls critical not working on lloadd
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Apr '25

17 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10323 Issue ID: 10323 Summary: Starttls critical not working on lloadd Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.9 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: lloadd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grichier(a)scaleway.com Target Milestone: --- Hello, Looks like starttls critical not working on lloadd. I have a backend with starttls configure but with bad CN. When I direct query the backend using ldapsearch with option -ZZ, I have the following error: ldap_start_tls: Connect error (-11) additional info: (unknown error code) But when I query the lloadd, which use same backend with olcBkLloadStartTLS to critical. It's work... On a tcpdump I can see the communication between backend and lloadd is not using starttls. (cleartext). But it shouldn't (critical option) cn: {1}ldap://ldap01.example.com olcBkLloadBackendUri: ldap://ldap01.example.com olcBkLloadNumconns: 10 olcBkLloadBindconns: 5 olcBkLloadRetry: 5000 olcBkLloadMaxPendingOps: 50 olcBkLloadMaxPendingConns: 10 olcBkLloadWeight: 1 olcBkLloadStartTLS: critical -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10328] New: Possible multiple free() calls in rewrite_subst_compile()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '25

16 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10328 Issue ID: 10328 Summary: Possible multiple free() calls in rewrite_subst_compile() Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: gyf161023(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- In rewrite_subst_compile() of libraries/librewrite/subst.c line 216 and 222, `subs` and `submatch` array are freed repeatedly on the index `nsub` instead of l, is this what was intended or the `nsub` has some guarantee to be 1 so that we are not freeing anything for second time? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 10254] New: Allow upgrading password hash on bind
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '25

15 Apr '25

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 3

[Issue 7981] Feature request: Crypt scheme in pwdPolicy
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '25

15 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7981 Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=10254 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 7981] Feature request: Crypt scheme in pwdPolicy
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '25

15 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7981 Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS --- Comment #5 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/763 Gone with another auxiliary objectclass but rereading the conversation, I guess I'll adjust to use a subclass later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 10326] New: SNI passing requirements differ across TLS implementations
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '25

15 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10326 Issue ID: 10326 Summary: SNI passing requirements differ across TLS implementations Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- mbedtls 3.6.3 has changed behaviour to correct a long standing issue where not setting a hostname meant hostname checking was disabled completely (CVE-2025-27809). It seems that how we do SNI vs. basic certificate checking differs between TLS implementations and our logic in ldap_int_tls_connect and ti_session_connect. This is also the reason test067-tls started failing on mbedtls builds. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10325] New: Variant uses overlays OID instead of contrib OID (OLcfgOvAt instead of OLcfgCtAt) for configuration attributes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '25

15 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10325 Issue ID: 10325 Summary: Variant uses overlays OID instead of contrib OID (OLcfgOvAt instead of OLcfgCtAt) for configuration attributes Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: contrib Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- The variant contrib overlay uses the wrong base OID for its attributes, which leads to OID duplication with DDS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10327] New: Adding syncprov to cn=config can lock up server
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '25

15 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10327 Issue ID: 10327 Summary: Adding syncprov to cn=config can lock up server Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- As reported on openldap-technical[0], adding syncprov to a cn=config DB can lock up the server. This happens when syncprov_db_otask is scheduled by syncprov_db_open. ITS#9045 has already dealt with this for config_back_entry_get, we can relax this description and allow a config_back_search do the same. Even though it is technically on a different thread than the main modification, AFAIK it is still the only one running as the server is paused and the main modification is paused waiting for it? [0]. https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10293] New: Log operations generated by syncrepl at STATS level
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '25

09 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10293 Issue ID: 10293 Summary: Log operations generated by syncrepl at STATS level Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Similarly to how incoming operations are logged, operations created by syncrepl should be logged as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10320] New: sigsegv in autogroup
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Apr '25

08 Apr '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10320 Issue ID: 10320 Summary: sigsegv in autogroup Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.9 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: sergej+openldap(a)p5n.pp.ru Target Milestone: --- slapd crashes in autogroup overlay on group modification I have few coredumps and can provide more information. This fails on 0x23 address, it may differs but it looks like f->f_un.f_un_complex is not ended with NULL sometimes. Modified group here is not autogroup, just groupOfUniqueNames. Operation is adding uniqueMember. Distro: Archlinux Overlay config: overlay autogroup autogroup-attrset labeledURIObject labeledURI uniqueMember autogroup-memberof-ad memberOf Stack: #0 0x00007e77bf511d7c in autogroup_memberOf_filter (f=f@entry=0x6f2c6d6165742d70, dn=dn@entry=0x7e765c1659f8, memberof_ad=memberof_ad@entry=0x5ac9490c2190) at autogroup.c:1532 #1 0x00007e77bf511dd1 in autogroup_memberOf_filter (f=0x6f2c6d6165742d70, f@entry=0x5ac9495089f0, dn=dn@entry=0x7e765c1659f8, memberof_ad=memberof_ad@entry=0x5ac9490c2190) at autogroup.c:1537 #2 0x00007e77bf511dd1 in autogroup_memberOf_filter (f=0x5ac9495089f0, dn=dn@entry=0x7e765c1659f8, memberof_ad=0x5ac9490c2190) at autogroup.c:1537 #3 0x00007e77bf512538 in autogroup_modify_entry (op=<optimized out>, rs=0x7e7665cf9910) at autogroup.c:1606 #4 0x00005ac946faf432 in overlay_op_walk () #5 0x00005ac946faf5f2 in ?? () #6 0x00005ac946f494cf in fe_op_modify () #7 0x00005ac946f4b623 in do_modify () #8 0x00005ac946f304d7 in ?? () #9 0x00005ac946f30f4b in ?? () #10 0x00007e77c04756e1 in ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (xpool=0x5ac949016bc0) at tpool.c:1059 #11 0x00007e77bfe4b70a in start_thread (arg=<optimized out>) at pthread_create.c:448 #12 0x00007e77bfecfaac in __GI___clone3 () at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/clone3.S:78 (gdb) p *f Cannot access memory at address 0x23 (gdb) up #1 0x000070fe705f3dd1 in autogroup_memberOf_filter (f=0x23, f@entry=0x55d1c45b6310, dn=dn@entry=0x70fd3000c428, memberof_ad=memberof_ad@entry=0x55d1c416a300) at autogroup.c:1537 1537 result = result || autogroup_memberOf_filter( f, dn, memberof_ad ); (gdb) up #2 0x000070fe705f3dd1 in autogroup_memberOf_filter (f=0x55d1c45b6310, f@entry=0x55d1c45b6670, dn=dn@entry=0x70fd3000c428, memberof_ad=memberof_ad@entry=0x55d1c416a300) at autogroup.c:1537 1537 result = result || autogroup_memberOf_filter( f, dn, memberof_ad ); (gdb) p *f->f_un.f_un_complex $5 = {f_choice = 124232868587560, f_un = {f_un_result = 939550768, f_un_desc = 0x70fd38006830, f_un_ava = 0x70fd38006830, f_un_ssa = 0x70fd38006830, f_un_mra = 0x70fd38006830, f_un_complex = 0x70fd38006830}, f_next = 0x23} f_next is 0x23 which is bad address -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs