openldap-technical February 2022

openldap-technical@openldap.org

30 participants
36 discussions

Problem with "force user to password reset at first login
by Rajagopal Rc 30 Oct '23

30 Oct '23

Hi, I am trying to force users to change their password at first login or after password reset by administrator. Tried following: 1)Password policy 'pwdMustChange TRUE' doesn't seems to be working as non of the users get prompt to change their password at first login. 2) used the 'pwdReset TRUE' attribute in users attributes, and it won't prompt to change the password and didn't allow to login i observe below messages in log "slapd[12684]: connection restricted to password changing only slapd[12684]: send_ldap_result: err=50 matched="" text="Operations are restricted to bind/unbind/abandon/StartTLS/modify password" slapd[12684]: conn=1053 op=1 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=50 nentries=0 text=Operations are restricted to bind/unbind/abandon/StartTLS/modify password" Please help me configure the option to force all users to change their password at first login or after pwd reset by administrator. Thanks & Regards Raj Tata Consultancy Services Mailto: rajagopal.rc(a)tcs.com Website: http://www.tcs.com ____________________________________________ Experience certainty. IT Services Business Solutions Consulting ____________________________________________ =====-----=====-----===== Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. Thank you

5 9

dynlist vs memberof performance issues
by Mark Cairney 12 Jan '23

12 Jan '23

Hi, I've been out the LDAP loop for a bit but the recent discussion of the memberof overlay on 2.5 piqued my curiosity. Having upgraded a Dev box, removed the memberof elements from the database and replaced the memberof overlay with dynlist the queries appear to work as expected but are both a) slow and b) heavily CPU-intensive on the LDAP server. 2021-09-01T12:47:17.603513+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 fd=12 ACCEPT from IP=192.168.152.33:58738 (IP=129.215.17.9:636) 2021-09-01T12:47:17.687488+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 fd=12 TLS established tls_ssf=256 ssf=256 tls_proto=TLSv1.3 tls_cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 2021-09-01T12:47:17.688032+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=0 SRCH base="" scope=0 deref=0 filter="(objectClass=*)" 2021-09-01T12:47:17.688470+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=0 SRCH attr=supportedSASLMechanisms 2021-09-01T12:47:17.688878+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=0 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 qtime=0.000014 etime=0.000214 nentries=1 text= 2021-09-01T12:47:17.811279+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=1 BIND dn="" method=163 2021-09-01T12:47:17.819249+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=1 RESULT tag=97 err=14 qtime=0.000030 etime=0.009084 text=SASL(0): successful result: 2021-09-01T12:47:17.908889+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=2 BIND dn="" method=163 2021-09-01T12:47:17.909836+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=2 RESULT tag=97 err=14 qtime=0.000031 etime=0.000181 text=SASL(0): successful result: 2021-09-01T12:47:17.938839+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=3 BIND dn="" method=163 2021-09-01T12:47:17.939621+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=3 BIND authcid="mcairney(a)EASE.ED.AC.UK" authzid="mcairney(a)EASE.ED.AC.UK" 2021-09-01T12:47:17.940213+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=3 BIND dn="uid=mcairney,ou=people,ou=central,dc=authorise-dev,dc=ed,dc=ac,dc=uk" mech=GSSAPI bind_ssf=256 ssf=256 2021-09-01T12:47:17.940616+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=3 RESULT tag=97 err=0 qtime=0.000024 etime=0.000409 text= 2021-09-01T12:47:18.227342+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=4 SRCH base="dc=authorise-dev,dc=ed,dc=ac,dc=uk" scope=2 deref=0 filter="(uid=mcairney)" 2021-09-01T12:47:18.227703+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=4 SRCH attr=* + 2021-09-01T12:47:31.392255+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=5 UNBIND 2021-09-01T12:47:31.460705+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 op=4 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 qtime=0.000031 etime=13.233679 nentries=1 text= 2021-09-01T12:47:31.461098+01:00 bonsai.authorise-dev.is.ed.ac.uk slapd[30075]: conn=1019 fd=12 closed I'm guessing that as the values are computed that this will be heavier on the CPU but it seems a bit excessive? Has anyone else noticed any similar performance issues? This is a relatively low-specced DEV server (2 vCPUs, 4GB RAM) so I guess this could be a factor but there's no io waiting on the server and no swapping? The database is on a par in size with our Production service ( about 400K user objects with 1 group object per user and then about 80K actual groups of users) The config for the primary DB (ACLs and rootPW redacted) is: dn: olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcDatabaseConfig objectClass: olcMdbConfig olcDatabase: {1}mdb olcDbDirectory: /opt/openldap/var/openldap-data/authorise olcSuffix: dc=authorise-dev,dc=ed,dc=ac,dc=uk olcAddContentAcl: FALSE olcLastMod: TRUE olcMaxDerefDepth: 2 olcReadOnly: FALSE olcSecurity: ssf=1 olcSecurity: update_ssf=112 olcSecurity: simple_bind=64 olcSizeLimit: unlimited olcSyncUseSubentry: FALSE olcTimeLimit: unlimited olcMonitoring: TRUE olcDbEnvFlags: writemap olcDbEnvFlags: nometasync olcDbNoSync: FALSE olcDbIndex: objectClass eq olcDbIndex: entryUUID eq olcDbIndex: entryCSN eq olcDbIndex: cn pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: uid pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: uidNumber pres,eq olcDbIndex: gidNumber pres,eq olcDbIndex: eduniType eq olcDbIndex: gecos pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: eduniCategory eq olcDbIndex: mail pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: eduniSchoolCode eq olcDbIndex: eduniIDStatus eq olcDbIndex: eduniCollegeCode eq olcDbIndex: eduniOrgCode eq olcDbIndex: memberOf pres,eq olcDbIndex: eduniLibraryBarcode pres,eq olcDbIndex: eduniOrganisation pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: eduniServiceCode pres,eq olcDbIndex: krbName pres,eq olcDbIndex: eduPersonAffiliation pres,eq olcDbIndex: eduPersonEntitlement pres,eq olcDbIndex: sn pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: eduniIdmsId pres,eq olcDbIndex: member pres,eq olcDbIndex: memberUid pres,eq olcDbIndex: eduniRefNo pres,eq olcDbIndex: eduniTitle pres,eq olcDbIndex: title pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: eduniCardNumber pres,eq olcDbIndex: eduniYearOfStudy eq olcDbIndex: description pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: givenName pres,eq,sub olcDbIndex: aliasedObjectName eq olcDbIndex: yubiKeyId pres,eq olcDbIndex: isMemberOf pres,eq olcDbIndex: hasMember pres,eq olcDbIndex: proxyAddresses pres,eq,sub olcDbMaxReaders: 96 olcDbMaxSize: 32212254720 olcDbMode: 0600 olcDbSearchStack: 16 structuralObjectClass: olcMdbConfig dn: olcOverlay={0}syncprov,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: top objectClass: olcSyncProvConfig olcOverlay: {0}syncprov structuralObjectClass: olcSyncProvConfig dn: olcOverlay={1}accesslog,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcAccessLogConfig olcOverlay: {1}accesslog olcAccessLogDB: cn=accesslog olcAccessLogOps: writes olcAccessLogPurge: 02+00:00 00+04:00 olcAccessLogSuccess: TRUE structuralObjectClass: olcAccessLogConfig dn: olcOverlay={2}dynlist,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcDynListConfig olcOverlay: {2}dynlist olcDynListAttrSet: {0}groupOfURLs memberURL member+memberOf@groupOfNames structuralObjectClass: olcDynListConfig -- /**************************** Mark Cairney ITI Enterprise Services Information Services University of Edinburgh Tel: 0131 650 6565 Email: Mark.Cairney(a)ed.ac.uk *******************************/ The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

12 27

slow memberOf queries in 2.5 with dynlist overlay
by Paul B. Henson 31 May '22

31 May '22

I'm still trying to figure out why my servers sometimes get into a state where queries requesting the memberOf attribute take an exceedingly long time to process, for example: Feb 13 19:46:05 ldap-02 slapd[13564]: conn=297643 fd=104 ACCEPT from PATH=/var/symas/run/ldapi (PATH=/var/symas/run/ldapi) Feb 13 19:46:05 ldap-02 slapd[13564]: conn=297643 op=0 BIND dn="cn=ldaproot,dc=cpp,dc=edu" method=128 Feb 13 19:46:05 ldap-02 slapd[13564]: conn=297643 op=0 BIND dn="cn=ldaproot,dc=cpp,dc=edu" mech=SIMPLE bind_ssf=0 ssf=71 Feb 13 19:46:05 ldap-02 slapd[13564]: conn=297643 op=0 RESULT tag=97 err=0 qtime=0.000006 etime=0.000050 text= Feb 13 19:46:05 ldap-02 slapd[13564]: conn=297643 op=1 SRCH base="dc=cpp,dc=edu" scope=2 deref=0 filter="(uid=henson)" Feb 13 19:46:05 ldap-02 slapd[13564]: conn=297643 op=1 SRCH attr=memberOf Feb 13 19:46:42 ldap-02 slapd[13564]: conn=297643 op=1 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 qtime=0.000012 etime=36.955710 nentries=1 text= How is the qtime calculated? It is nice and short, despite the wall clock reading over 30 seconds :(. Usually I have to reboot the server completely to clear this up, but this time I just had to restart it, and then the queries were lickity split again: Feb 13 19:55:01 ldap-02 slapd[89655]: conn=1556 fd=40 ACCEPT from PATH=/var/symas/run/ldapi (PATH=/var/symas/run/ldapi) Feb 13 19:55:01 ldap-02 slapd[89655]: conn=1556 op=0 BIND dn="cn=ldaproot,dc=cpp,dc=edu" method=128 Feb 13 19:55:01 ldap-02 slapd[89655]: conn=1556 op=0 BIND dn="cn=ldaproot,dc=cpp,dc=edu" mech=SIMPLE bind_ssf=0 ssf=71 Feb 13 19:55:01 ldap-02 slapd[89655]: conn=1556 op=0 RESULT tag=97 err=0 qtime=0.000009 etime=0.000088 text= Feb 13 19:55:01 ldap-02 slapd[89655]: conn=1556 op=1 SRCH base="dc=cpp,dc=edu" scope=2 deref=0 filter="(uid=henson)" Feb 13 19:55:01 ldap-02 slapd[89655]: conn=1556 op=1 SRCH attr=memberOf Feb 13 19:55:01 ldap-02 slapd[89655]: conn=1556 op=1 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 qtime=0.000013 etime=0.213149 nentries=1 text= Over 30 seconds elapsed time to .2 seconds? I'd like to see the .2 all the time :). When the server gets like this, there's a very high read IO load, 200-300Mb/s, compared to generally less than 1Mb/s when things are working right. It almost seems like it's doing a full disk scan searching for members every time. Any suggestions on what to dig into? Thanks...

5 16

Official symas docker image? Or what others do?
by Dave Macias 30 Mar '22

30 Mar '22

Hello, Wondering if there is a plan to do an official image. Also what others in the community doing? Finally, there is this project that seems to be updated/supported but obviously not official https://github.com/bitnami/bitnami-docker-openldap anyone here used/seen this? Why am i asking? We simply looking to dockerize our infra and want to see what people here have experienced. Our ldap env: 3-way MMR (syncrepl) on v2.6.1 Thank you, Dave

6 9

Delta-sync replication: is it possible to force resync delta?
by skeletor 04 Mar '22

04 Mar '22

Hi. I use delta-sync replication on version 2.4. Sometimes, some records don't send to slave. Insofar as this is delta-sync after a new update slave receive only last update. Therefore slave and master are not consistent. Is it possible run force resync from accesslog to consistent check if all records are present on slave? May be this is a bug on version 2.4 and it already has been fixed in newer version? master 2.4.57 slave 2.4.55

6 10

Problem with ppolicy overlay and userPassword attribute
by Frederic Dussurget 01 Mar '22

01 Mar '22

Hi, We're facing the following issue : * From one side, we have to store two values (same password with two different encodings) within the userPassword attribute (eg. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4519#section-2.41) * On the other side, we do have to use the ppolicy overlay in order to hash to Argon2 automatically passwords that are sent in cleartext, in order to to use the pwdLastSuccess attribute (storing last authentication date) and pwdAccountLockedTime (account deactivation), but this overlay does not seem to support multiple values in the userPassword attribute as it looks to be described in the following abstract : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-behera-ldap-password-policy-10#… and https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=slapo-ppolicy&sektion=5&apr… We're not able to add a user account with two values in the userPassword attribute : [root@openldap25 ~]# cat testuser_add.ldif dn: uid=testuser,ou=people,dc=my-domain,dc=fr objectClass: person objectClass: inetOrgPerson objectClass: organizationalPerson objectClass: top uid: testuser cn: testuserCN sn: testuserSN userPassword: password userPassword: drowssap [root@openldap25 ~]# ldapadd -H ldaps://localhost:636 -x -D "cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=fr" -W -f testuser_add.ldif Enter LDAP Password: adding new entry "uid=testuser,ou=people,dc=my-domain,dc=fr" ldap_add: Constraint violation (19) additional info: Password policy only allows one password value However, we're able to add a user with a single value in the userPassword attribute, then, adding a second value thru the next LDAP request : [root@openldap25 ~]# cat testuser_add.ldif dn: uid=testuser,ou=people,dc=my-domain,dc=fr objectClass: person objectClass: inetOrgPerson objectClass: organizationalPerson objectClass: top uid: testuser cn: testuserCN sn: testuserSN userPassword : password [root@openldap25 ~]# ldapadd -H ldaps://localhost:636 -x -D "cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=fr" -W -f testuser_add.ldif Enter LDAP Password: adding new entry "uid=testuser,ou=people,dc=my-domain,dc=fr" [root@openldap25 ~]# cat testuser_mod.ldif dn: uid=testuser,ou=people,dc=my-domain,dc=fr changetype: modify add: userPassword userPassword: drowssap [root@openldap25 ~]# ldapmodify -H ldaps://localhost:636 -x -D "cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=fr" -W -f testuser_mod.ldif Enter LDAP Password: modifying entry "uid=testuser,ou=people,dc=my-domain,dc=fr" [root@openldap25 ~]# ldapsearch -x -H ldaps://localhost:636 -D "cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=fr" -W -LLL -b "ou=people,dc=my-domain,dc=fr" "(uid=testuser)" userPassword Enter LDAP Password: dn: uid=testuser,ou=people,dc=my-domain,dc=fr userPassword:: e0FSR09OMn0kYXJnb24yaWQkdj0xOSRtPTY1NTM2LHQ9MixwPTEkZjlPc3NtRFZ DWmlzQk1IVEhWczRMZyRsMVAvbWdEdTA1bEpBc2pxcVF6aERYaENMV1BudnQyeDlRTDdweXFnVDFV userPassword:: e0FSR09OMn0kYXJnb24yaWQkdj0xOSRtPTY1NTM2LHQ9MixwPTEkVk5ST1FMZFp 2Q0ptajNIcHQxYWtZdyRRcjJDYUpKSjZSWlhvZjFicDJmNGNOaGlRa3E5czlCU0FTbEtVNFoxYjBj Considering configuration, we're running an OpenLDAP 2.5.7 server (LTB project) on a RHEL8 OS. * ppolicy overlay dn: olcOverlay={0}ppolicy,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcPPolicyConfig olcOverlay: {0}ppolicy olcPPolicyHashCleartext: TRUE olcPPolicyUseLockout: FALSE olcPPolicyForwardUpdates: FALSE olcPPolicyDisableWrite: FALSE olcPPolicySendNetscapeControls: FALSE olcPPolicyDefault: cn=default,ou=ppolicies,dc=my-domain,dc=fr * default password policy dn: ou=ppolicies,dc=my-domain,dc=fr objectClass: organizationalUnit objectClass: top ou: ppolicies dn: cn=default,ou=ppolicies,dc=my-domain,dc=fr objectClass: pwdPolicy objectClass: organizationalRole cn: default pwdAttribute: userPassword pwdLockout: TRUE * password storage dn: olcDatabase={-1}frontend,cn=config olcPasswordHash: {ARGON2} Question : * Is that behaviour normal ? * May we keep on leaning on this behaviour without fearing that this ability of adding a second value to the userPassword attribute will be revoked in the future versions/fix/patches of the service ? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Best regards, Frédéric Dussurget / Maxime Schmutz Université Lumière Lyon 2

3 15

LMDB storage layout and page structure
by Ivan Unknown 01 Mar '22

01 Mar '22

Hello! I have been looking at the LMDB project code trying to learn and understand how a database could be implemented; however, I have been struggling to answer the questions below for quite some time, partially due to my limited knowledge of C: - How does LMDB store keys and values in the page? I have learned that a page consists of the header, slots, and key-value pairs but how does the database handle keys and values that are too large to fit within a page? - I found that LMDB does not keep a fixed number of keys per page, so that would depend on the key-value pairs' sizes already inserted into the page. Is this correct? Does it mean that B+tree pages (branch or leaf) could have a different number of keys depending on the key size? How does it affect performance or implementation of the B+tree? - Are there any limitations on the size of a key? Can it be of an arbitrary length? - What is the difference between IS_LEAF and IS_LEAF2 flags in the page header? What is the difference between these pages? - How do overflow pages work in LMDB? From what I could understand, if a key or a value does not fit in the page, it will be stored in the overflow page (the entire page is allocated for that specific key or value). Is this correct? What happens when the key size is several times larger than the page size, e.g. 1MB value with 4KB pages? - What is a sub-page in LMDB (F_SUBDATA)? How does it work? I would greatly appreciate it if someone could share links to the documentation that covers internals of the database, online videos, research papers, mailing lists, or any notes you could share to help me understand the above. Thank you very much! Cheers, Ivan

2 1

Password policies and hashed passwords
by Felix Natter 26 Feb '22

26 Feb '22

Dear openldap-technical users, my password policies (openldap 2.5.11) are not enforced and Roland Gruber (author of LAM (Pro)) kindly advised me that passwords must be stored in plaintext (Hash=PLAIN) in order to be able to enforce password minimal length, password quality etc (i.e. when using passwd(1) on Linux or an LDAP client on Windows). Currently we are storing passwords as base64 encoded (::*) Salted SHA1 hashes ("{SSHA}*") (according to slapcat -n 1). tl;dr: For enforcing password policies, what is the role of "password-hash:PLAIN"(?) and olcPPolicyHashCleartext: TRUE (applied to dn: olcOverlay=ppolicy,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config) and what is the security implication of these changes (we are using starttls on linux / ssl on windows with a self-signed certificate in intranet)? - Is it (necessary and) enough to switch to "password-hash:PLAIN" to be able to enforce password policies? Does olcPPolicyHashCleartext: TRUE [alone] help as written in this post [1]? [1] https://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-technical/201708/msg00024.html EDIT: I think that olcPPolicyHashCleartext==ppolicy_hash_cleartext (one is OLC, one is trad. config)? -> can we update the documentation [2]? [2] https://www.openldap.org/doc/admin25/guide.html#Password%20Policies - I am worried about security when storing/transferring pwds in plain text (we are using starttls on linux / ssl on windows with a self-signed certificate in intranet) [3]. Will "ppolicy_hash_cleartext" [2] help with this? [3] The manual states "Unfortunately, as dictionary and brute force attacks are generally quite easy for attackers to successfully mount, this advantage is marginal at best (this is why all modern Unix systems use shadow password files)." Many Thanks and Best Regards, Felix -- Felix Natter

3 11

ldap_start_tls_s fails
by James Gordon 26 Feb '22

26 Feb '22

Hi, I have just installed symas openldap v2.6. Everything seems to be running ok, except that I cannot get C interface ldap_start_tls_s() to work. If I do something like this the program works fine: ldap_initialize(&ld, HOST)); rc = ldap_simple_bind_s(ld, BASEDN, BASEPWD); ldap_unbind(ld); However, if I do something like this the program fails with ldap error string "local error": ldap_initialize(&ld, HOST)); ldap_set_option(ld, LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_CACERTFILE); ldap_start_tls_s(ld, NULL, NULL); rc = ldap_simple_bind_s(ld, BASEDN, BASEPWD); ldap_unbind(ld); From the command line, TLS seems to work fine: The following works ok: ldapsearch -H ldap://ldap.domain.com:389 -D "cn=admin,dc=domain,dc=com" -w secret -b “ou=users,dc=domain,dc=com” -ZZ This also works ok from a different server openssl s_client -verify 10 -starttls ldap -showcerts -connect ldap.domain.com:389 -CApath /etc/ssl/certs (verification = ok): However, if I omit the CApath it fails, not sure if that is a clue to the problem: openssl s_client -verify 10 -starttls ldap -showcerts -connect ldap.domain.com:389 (Verification error: unable to get local issuer certificate). Any help would be appreciated. If this is the wrong list, let me know. ldapsearch -H ldap://ldap.red0rb.com:389 -D "cn=admin,dc=red0rb,dc=com" -w MdKlUIGYm0o63HxQ0RWYuKWkRkgr3Ohy -b “ou=users,dc=red0rb,dc=com” -ZZ

1 0

Re: 2.5 Quick-Start guide roadblock: ldap_bind: Confidentiality required (13)
by Ben Poliakoff 25 Feb '22

25 Feb '22

> > Steps 1-7 involve building the software, which I would not expect you to > be > doing if you're using Symas' packages? > You are, of course, correct about my having not compiled slapd, I misspoke. > In any case, I have no idea what changes you made to the original LDIF. I > have no such issue doing only the changes advised in the quickstart guide: > I sorted out what was happening. I was using the ldapadd command syntax from the Quick-Start guide, which doesn't use the '-H ldap:///' parameter, so ldapadd was picking up defaults from /etc/ldap/ldap.conf and happily talking to our existing production slapd, running on a different server (which of course does require secure binds). However, when I added '-H ldap:///' to the ldapadd command, ensuring that the ldap traffic was now going to the correct server (headpalm), the command fails with "ldap_bind: Invalid credentials (49)". At this point the olcRootPW in my slapd.ldif is the default ("secret"), and I can see that the base64 encoded olcRootPW in "slapd.d/cn=config/olcDatabase={1}mdb.ldif" is "olcRootPW:: c2VjcmV0" (which is, in fact the base64 encoding for "secret"). Does anyone have debugging approaches that might help me sort out why slapd isn't happy with the password? Also with regard to this mailing list's protocol, would it be better to ask this question in a separate thread? (It's humbling to be asking such phenomenally basic questions, having built and managed our existing openldap servers for many many years.) Ben

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

openldap-technical February 2022