openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20961 discussions

(ITS#7283) Usage of private headers make building out-of-tree extensions painful
by guillomovitch＠gmail.com 30 May '12

30 May '12

Full_Name: Guillaume Rousse Version: any OS: Linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (128.93.30.10) In order to build out of tree extensions, such as ppolicy external password checker (http://ltb-project.org/wiki/documentation/openldap-ppolicy-check-password), you need additional slapd headers, portable.h and slapd.h (and a bunch of additional dependant ones), which are currently not installed, and thus considered as private. A request to ship those headers was refused by fedora package maintainer, precisely for this reason: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812860 The situation ought to be clarified, and some kind of solution found, as maintaining a custom slapd build just to be able to benefit from this extensability is largely overkill.

1 0

Re: (ITS#7274) delta-syncrepl MMR infinite loop
by quanah＠zimbra.com 30 May '12

30 May '12

--On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:25 PM -0700 Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> wrote: >> so it is tracking "000" as a third master? This seems to be why the >> original server (which was 000 before being promoted to 001) replicates >> these entries back to itself. > > The loop is caused by the patch to ITS#6872, which considers a consumer > out of date whenever the number of CSNs in its sync request doesn't match > the number known to the provider. > > The data here is basically invalid: server1 has entries generated using > SID=0 but it has no contextCSN value with SID=0. It only sent SID=1 and > SID=2 in its sync request. Server2, which just updated from server1, has > a contextCSN for SID=0 in addition to 1 and 2 (and that's all correct). > > Server1 should have always had a contextCSN value for SID=0 but doesn't. > This problem would not occur if server1 was converted first from > standalone into a single-master. I.e., load syncprov on it, let it scan > the DB and generate the first sid=0 contextCSN, before turning it intu a > MMR node. For documentation purposes -- The issue occurred because I set olcServerID before I loaded syncprov. Re-ordering my script to load syncprov (which then caused a contextCSN value to be correctly generated on Server1 for SID=0) fixed this loop. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7274) delta-syncrepl MMR infinite loop
by hyc＠OpenLDAP.org 30 May '12

30 May '12

quanah(a)zimbra.com wrote: > --On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:27 PM +0000 quanah(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > >> Full_Name: Quanah Gibson-Mount >> Version: 2.4.31 >> OS: Linux 2.6 >> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ >> Submission from: (NULL) (75.108.184.39) > > We can see that the script turning it into a master ran here: > > Thu May 17 16:05:46 2012 *** Running as zimbra user: > /opt/zimbra/libexec/zmldapenable-mmr -s 2 -m > ldap://zre-ldap002.eng.vmware.com:389/ > > so 16:05:46 > > In the accesslog, we see: > > dn: cn=accesslog > objectClass: auditContainer > cn: accesslog > structuralObjectClass: auditContainer > contextCSN: 20120517225152.913667Z#000000#000#000000 > contextCSN: 20120517230823.615364Z#000000#001#000000 > contextCSN: 20120517230546.409118Z#000000#002#000000 > > dn: reqStart=20120517230546.000019Z,cn=accesslog > objectClass: auditAdd > structuralObjectClass: auditAdd > reqStart: 20120517230546.000019Z > reqEnd: 20120517230546.000020Z > reqType: add > reqSession: 100 > reqAuthzID: cn=config > reqDN: cn=zimbra > reqResult: 0 > reqMod: objectClass:+ organizationalRole > reqMod: description:+ Zimbra Systems Application Data > reqMod: cn:+ zimbra > reqMod: structuralObjectClass:+ organizationalRole > reqMod: entryUUID:+ 40f78bea-34be-1031-8a5d-e1466f667e19 > reqMod: creatorsName:+ cn=config > reqMod: createTimestamp:+ 20120517224907Z > reqMod: entryCSN:+ 20120517224907.221672Z#000000#000#000000 > reqMod: modifiersName:+ cn=config > reqMod: modifyTimestamp:+ 20120517224907Z > reqEntryUUID: 40f78bea-34be-1031-8a5d-e1466f667e19 > entryUUID: 948929e2-34c0-1031-9a14-c93bd10ff0f2 > creatorsName: cn=config > createTimestamp: 20120517224907Z > entryCSN: 20120517224907.221672Z#000000#000#000000 > modifiersName: cn=config > modifyTimestamp: 20120517224907Z > > so it is tracking "000" as a third master? This seems to be why the > original server (which was 000 before being promoted to 001) replicates > these entries back to itself. The loop is caused by the patch to ITS#6872, which considers a consumer out of date whenever the number of CSNs in its sync request doesn't match the number known to the provider. The data here is basically invalid: server1 has entries generated using SID=0 but it has no contextCSN value with SID=0. It only sent SID=1 and SID=2 in its sync request. Server2, which just updated from server1, has a contextCSN for SID=0 in addition to 1 and 2 (and that's all correct). Server1 should have always had a contextCSN value for SID=0 but doesn't. This problem would not occur if server1 was converted first from standalone into a single-master. I.e., load syncprov on it, let it scan the DB and generate the first sid=0 contextCSN, before turning it intu a MMR node. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#7280) accesslog write to subentry of log database
by quanah＠zimbra.com 30 May '12

30 May '12

--On Sunday, May 27, 2012 11:27 PM +0000 openldap(a)stormcloud9.net wrote: > This is nonconstructive. I know not to do that, I'm the one who > filed the ITS...<br> > You don't address the feature request at all, only that it > currently doesn't work which is why the request was filed in the > first place. Is logging multiple accesslog overlays to the same > backend database unfeasible?<br> No. -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7282) Invalid Regex in Documentation
by quanah＠zimbra.com 30 May '12

30 May '12

--On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:04 PM +0000 alacer.cogitatus(a)gmail.com wrote: > Full_Name: Kyle Smith > Version: 2.4.30 > OS: Ubuntu Server 10.04.02LTS > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ > Submission from: (NULL) (192.245.87.13) > > > In section 8.2.5 of the OpenLDAP Documentation (Access Control Examples), > the example regex to allow an IP address is given by: > > by peername.regex=IP:10\..+ read > > I think it should read: > > by peername.regex=IP=10\..+ read > > Thanks, fixed. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by michael＠stroeder.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms000604020701070406090000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Howard Chu wrote: > Michael Str=F6der wrote: >> hyc(a)symas.com wrote: >>> Michael Str=F6der wrote: >>>> Howard Chu wrote: >>>>> The text also states >>>>> The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword viol= ates >>>>> Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinde= r >>>>> interoperability. >>>> >>>> In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least = of a >>>> problem today. >>>> >>>>> Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates t= he specs >>>>> was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's wh= at >>>>> it's for. >>>> >>>> ??? >>>> >>>> ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPass= word'. >>>> I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. >>> >>> Wrong, ldappasswd sends a PasswordModify exop to a server. The server= may >>> implement that exop in any implementation-specific manner, and there = is no >>> guarantee that the password a server uses is ever instantiated in any= LDAP >>> entry. There is no guarantee that setting a userPassword attribute us= ing >>> ldapadd/ldapmodify will ever do anything useful for any given LDAP us= er. >> >> You're arguing based on what a LDAP server could do. I'm arguing based= on what >> OpenLDAP and other server implementations are doing for years. >=20 > ActiveDirectory is an obvious example invalidating your argument. Does MS AD support RFC 3062? AFAIK W2K3 doesn't. I don't currently have the possibility to check with most recent W2K8R2 t= hough. Anyway that's not relevant here either. We're talking about how OpenLDAP stores and checks the passwords since over a decade. Violating Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications could be avoide= d by implementing RFC 3112. But this also never happened. > Don't fix what isn't broken. With this argument you can immediately stop any progress. Maybe also a valuable statement by the OpenLDAP chief architect. Ciao, Michael. --------------ms000604020701070406090000 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFOzCC BTcwggMfoAMCAQICAwl4kDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4w HAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmlu ZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0xMDEx MTcxNTQzMzFaFw0xMjExMTYxNTQzMzFaMD8xGDAWBgNVBAMUD01pY2hhZWwgU3Ry9mRlcjEj MCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUbWljaGFlbEBzdHJvZWRlci5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA A4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDo2SKth5GhtaDrCyfGtyUG+/hAAa/J52L0NFN4SSRvTtdGf9HfWwwd NCtgae0TVGWk2lKDbXA9d5vmyIiRhuwxd90H6FLErhRBeB9G67qtw87E8WUoXt2DwPQEUTWV hqHpPadlmgFw3+i3TGQQTe3O3W9MMMd4GJNhObem2VGRuCD37OXnzBksTcq0FPJgcWAhe3d/ 0ItOkNWBqgq8Mf3p7WFBhaQ0a27BC/mKtH8fI3kPcS305imPRja69Msq3EwUZBc9ToVp6FRQ NYKjfOBybDUzVkmRZl3H8xutQP2w8Zxb8m5f7Q1BfLLrIFScfYvIDgOERxTCd4lab8+/09XH AgMBAAGjggEAMIH9MAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwVgYJYIZIAYb4QgENBEkWR1RvIGdldCB5b3Vy IG93biBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBmb3IgRlJFRSBoZWFkIG92ZXIgdG8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5DQWNl cnQub3JnMEAGA1UdJQQ5MDcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDAgYKKwYBBAGCNwoDBAYKKwYB BAGCNwoDAwYJYIZIAYb4QgQBMDIGCCsGAQUFBwEBBCYwJDAiBggrBgEFBQcwAYYWaHR0cDov L29jc3AuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRtaWNoYWVsQHN0cm9lZGVyLmNvbTANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAgEANPf/aLF41eQlvN5dEg3CFnlN//qQK7+EPIXLnHprNWLb4nBwgdPj /E+qa1umT7px4Py3VS0UTKqLmMdWftwid8MOMHWalZwrfx0Z8U3He+EdJhOSnn9vdd/ug7Xd dI/hRjLaBSq9ZhCczEUgL6vTxCYPlIoHF56y/oxSJw59vRBjvRFKXvpBZWseeRkcGACQduNH SNdWC1IqHAbQlgOS9VWQUYlm//BdaLkezRxqnQp5+KJMAcZzHpdNJ3G4SqCJ02Z3n4kk8IKZ AjgiWxisDFNsfXKDb9Ng5ntnnH2ouxrgPoNnW445tgkz50VKHstylx9s5O3G7uUTtg0J+z63 TA8xbN6kzRx7RgAUkEXhl6WEdW+3EVj5tYY38Uy8vleP+gYZfphKEmQJgIQqy9D2+gesbolT QdWYgbUYY2AHJOshskMW7pahYnFX2pZmn/ayaPc+JFJlCEqO0+DcYQjYuv6sntQgZGkok7yZ R4xMbyCp61pTrfGWOufZs/FiScJZg1IWY5qb4URH4VZZjLNMR2pFMRuE4LvgkkMRasbUv7Yv n3Lzv34lTfJKUqYW6nx//L2NS4rN63o0taPwRygnuBK4kp7EYEcwtLeanJhQoIu4b6If9rwy D7CFAp51wIewV9VtZ1Is0irNBcMVyhJogIcuIn+VWY1ff1RxySD/djMxggOUMIIDkAIBATCB gDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcx IjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1 cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDCXiQMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHoMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDUyOTIxMTU0N1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYE FPftjo2JfwDdzUByvPPFBJpEMBd4MF8GCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoG CCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBkQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGDMIGAMHkxEDAOBgNVBAoTB1Jvb3QgQ0ExHjAc BgNVBAsTFWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQ0EgQ2VydCBTaWduaW5n IEF1dGhvcml0eTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3VwcG9ydEBjYWNlcnQub3JnAgMJeJAwgZMG CyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGDoIGAMHkxEDAOBgNVBAoTB1Jvb3QgQ0ExHjAcBgNVBAsTFWh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQ0EgQ2VydCBTaWduaW5nIEF1dGhvcml0eTEh MB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3VwcG9ydEBjYWNlcnQub3JnAgMJeJAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAE ggEAqWLrqBEmQFwdUWzw3ZuQR0bnPzvAMZBb81cTmCzguvREDKdmO9vYvDVzoB/AhnnE6cE+ NYlO7uQBg7AiQSq++LoQ93tYsIjoZM44xiOxx8k+tAkhTUGEK4yJ9G86ptDRa/VSK25vC/Jg dfza7znhUF2210scAyjiG46RSRG/otIAhuMRjRKtvbC5jD5luJeJxePFpWR/V7+qKWmVvyJU mIGY90XdKmhY3b8XNWecfghap8V4NVNWzLuNxwH6vW8ym8+W4eZ/EsMsJ7+ht7HqgE71hjtj QtDfdcEGGww1Ch0tGj7HbynRm7pf2airOQ3j8GxMwFkkq/If8+4jqrNC1gAAAAAAAA== --------------ms000604020701070406090000--

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by quanah＠zimbra.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

--On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:38 PM +0000 michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: > Well, you're the OpenLDAP god. So you can arbitrarly decide whatever you > want. (But you shouldn't wonder why there's no active OpenLDAP community.) Comments like this weaken any point you are trying to make, serve no purpose, and are obnoxious. Your emails would be better served without them. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by hyc＠symas.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

Michael Ströder wrote: > hyc(a)symas.com wrote: >> Michael Ströder wrote: >>> Howard Chu wrote: >>>> The text also states >>>> The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword violates >>>> Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinder >>>> interoperability. >>> >>> In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least of a >>> problem today. >>> >>>> Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates the specs >>>> was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's what it's for. >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPassword'. >>> I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. >> >> Wrong, ldappasswd sends a PasswordModify exop to a server. The server may >> implement that exop in any implementation-specific manner, and there is no >> guarantee that the password a server uses is ever instantiated in any LDAP >> entry. There is no guarantee that setting a userPassword attribute using >> ldapadd/ldapmodify will ever do anything useful for any given LDAP user. > > You're arguing based on what a LDAP server could do. I'm arguing based on what > OpenLDAP and other server implementations are doing for years. ActiveDirectory is an obvious example invalidating your argument. > None of what you said in this thread is a real argument against adding SHA-2 > hash algos to the core. Still you did not answer why SHA-1 is in and SHA-2 is out. At present there is no need to change anything in the core since SHA-2 support can be dynamically loaded. Don't fix what isn't broken. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by michael＠stroeder.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > Michael Ströder wrote: >> Howard Chu wrote: >>> The text also states >>> The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword violates >>> Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinder >>> interoperability. >> >> In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least of a >> problem today. >> >>> Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates the specs >>> was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's what it's for. >> >> ??? >> >> ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPassword'. >> I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. > > Wrong, ldappasswd sends a PasswordModify exop to a server. The server may > implement that exop in any implementation-specific manner, and there is no > guarantee that the password a server uses is ever instantiated in any LDAP > entry. There is no guarantee that setting a userPassword attribute using > ldapadd/ldapmodify will ever do anything useful for any given LDAP user. You're arguing based on what a LDAP server could do. I'm arguing based on what OpenLDAP and other server implementations are doing for years. None of what you said in this thread is a real argument against adding SHA-2 hash algos to the core. Still you did not answer why SHA-1 is in and SHA-2 is out. Well, you're the OpenLDAP god. So you can arbitrarly decide whatever you want. (But you shouldn't wonder why there's no active OpenLDAP community.) Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#7278) [PATCH] SHA-2: Add support salted SHA-2 password hashes
by hyc＠symas.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

Michael Ströder wrote: > Howard Chu wrote: >> The text also states >> The practice of storing hashed passwords in userPassword violates >> Standard Track (RFC 4519) schema specifications and may hinder >> interoperability. > > In practice we all live very well with this for years. That's least of a > problem today. > >> Anyone building operational procedures on something that violates the specs >> was asking for trouble. Users should be using ldappasswd, that's what it's for. > > ??? > > ldappasswd writes a hashed password to - tataa - attribute 'userPassword'. > I cannot see how this is different from using ldapadd/ldapmodify. Wrong, ldappasswd sends a PasswordModify exop to a server. The server may implement that exop in any implementation-specific manner, and there is no guarantee that the password a server uses is ever instantiated in any LDAP entry. There is no guarantee that setting a userPassword attribute using ldapadd/ldapmodify will ever do anything useful for any given LDAP user. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

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