https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7298
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=10195
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7298
--- Comment #6 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
"No data for this control" means the data portion should not be sent at all.
Setting bv_len and bv_val is just the quirk of how their API is designed. If we
accept their published spec at face value, then their C# SDK implementation is
wrong, because it is sending zero length data instead of "no data". You should
submit a ticket to Microsoft to resolve this by either fixing their doc or
fixing their SDK, whichever the case may be. The current OpenLDAP behavior
conforms to their official spec so there is no OpenLDAP bug here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7298
--- Comment #5 from lesignor(a)cirad.fr ---
In the Microsoft documentation
(https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/desktop/ldap/ld…),
they write :
ldctl_value
No data for this control. In the berval structure, set bv_len to zero and
bv_val to NULL.
As they said set bv_len to zero, I guess some developer choose to send 04 00 to
set the length to 0, and other consider to remove all fields.
The ldap client, I use, is a dotnet client. I think it uses the c# sdk from
Microsoft.
Would it be possible to accept both implementation (null or empty) ?
It will be a great help to migrate to openldap 2.6.x.
Thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10192
Issue ID: 10192
Summary: otp.c overlay - HOTP wrongly numbers gneration
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.7
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michal.pura(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Hello, I am trying to use otp.c overlay but seems that numbers are not properly
generated.
In my case I have random secret like 'aaaabbbbccccdddd' and according to what
Google Authenticator and https://www.verifyr.com/en/otp/check#hotp is
generating we should have the following HOTP codes for above secret:
1 - 229789
2 - 801677
3 - 630108
4 - 214543
5 - 916392
6 - 346078
7 - 701644
8 - 865071
9 - 431248
10 - 355053
but, otp.c module is returning the following numbers:
1 - 441008
2 - 465617
3 - 669281
4 - 042697
5 - 461210
6 - 620979
7 - 700859
8 - 573924
9 - 805067
10 - 135880
The secret is properly generated and used in the code. I've checked it under
debugger. The hash algorithm is defined as 1.2.840.113549.2.7 ->
HMAC-WITH-SHA1. What is wrong?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7400
--- Comment #14 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
head:
• ae1c8f18
by Howard Chu at 2024-02-20T15:55:37+00:00
ITS#7400 slapo-memberof: delete note about deprecation
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7400
--- Comment #13 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
RE26:
• f30def77
by Howard Chu at 2024-03-26T16:38:10+00:00
ITS#7400 slapo-memberof: delete note about deprecation
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10082
Issue ID: 10082
Summary: More dynlist eval tweaks
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.14
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
When the memberOf attribute is a user attribute instead of operational, it will
be expanded on any search for (all user attributes). If the search is filtering
on objectclasses that don't contain this attribute, that's wasted work. Check
for a matching objectclass in the filter before doing that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9037
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version|unspecified |0.9.32
Target Milestone|--- |0.9.33
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9037
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|TEST |FIXED
Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |hyc(a)openldap.org
--- Comment #38 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
RE0.9:
• 83dc42c5
by Howard Chu at 2024-03-26T14:52:42+00:00
ITS#9037 mdb_page_search: fix error code when DBI record is missing
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10189
Issue ID: 10189
Summary: Extra `#endif` in `libraries/liblunicode/utbm/utbm.h`
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: annieliu(a)roblox.com
Target Milestone: ---
In `libraries/liblunicode/utbm/utbm.h`
(https://github.com/openldap/openldap/blob/master/libraries/liblunicode/utbm…),
only one `#ifndef` macro is defined, but there are two `#endif`s. Wondering if
this is a typo?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.