--On Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:58 PM -0700 Howard Chu
> Michael StrÃ¶der 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
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". Thus I had to rework all my acls to avoid ever using
the "users" concept when it would have been quite useful (and had to
to sets instead).
access to ...
by dn.subtree="cn=auth" none
by users read
This would blow away non-mapped users, and give mapped ones the desired