Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Apr 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:58 PM -0700 Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote:
>> Michael Ströder wrote:
>>> I have some doubts about ACLs containing "by users" and the term
>>> "authenticated clients" used in the man pages: If I bind with
>>> SASL/EXTERNAL (e.g. over LDAPI) and the authc-DN does *not* map to an
>>> authz-DN of a real directory entry what does "by users" then mean
>> It means anyone who has successfully authenticated, by any means.
>>> It seems that slapd grants access with clause "by users" but I feel
>>> is wrong. I'd prefer if "users" would mean fully-identified
>>> mapped to a real entry.
>> No. Such a restriction would prevent distributed authentication from ever
> The downside of not being able to be able to specify authenticated DNs vs
> DNs that actually map to an entry in the database is that for some things
> (like SASL/GSSAPI setups) it makes the "users" value completely
> worthless, as any kerberos principal in the KDB that connects to the ldap
> servers is considered a "user".
You confuse authentication with authorization. In this case, that
principal is certainly authenticated. It's just not authorized (in your
case). There certainly may be cases where such users are authorized to
Kurt, it's not that simple: Off course there was an successful authentication
in case of SASL/EXTERNAL. Taking the term "authenticated clients" literally
you're done for processing "by users".
But the user is not really *identified* in terms of an entity represented by a
directory entry and therefore the behaviour looks strange to me because no-one
wants to deal with SASL authc-DNs when designing ACLs. I'd prefer changing
semantics of "by users" to "identified clients" or having another
identifiedusers" with that semantics.
The authorization step happens *after* identification based on the (optionally
mapped) principal name.