On Tuesday, 6 July 2010 13:24:51 Licause, Al wrote:
Buchan,
Thanks for the information.....please see my responses inserted below.
Al
-----Original Message----- From: Buchan Milne [mailto:bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 4:56 AM To: openldap-technical@openldap.org Cc: Licause, Al Subject: Re: Expired password allowed in via pwdGraceAuthNLimit w/o warning to user
I did not reply to your off-list mails, primarily because I was out of the office (at a data centre) all of Friday, and without internet access over the weekend. You could have sent those replies to your original thread to the list ...
No problem. You were correct in stating that I posted to the wrong discussion and I therefore should have expected no further discussion.
On Friday, 2 July 2010 20:09:15 Licause, Al wrote:
I have installed and configured the ppolicy overlay software on a Red Hat V5.4 server along with the openldap server software and the following components:
openldap-servers-2.3.43-3.el5 python-ldap-2.2.0-2.1 openldap-devel-2.3.43-3.el5 checkpassword-ldap-0.01-1.2.el5.rf mozldap-6.0.5-1.el5 openldap-2.3.43-3.el5 openldap-debuginfo-2.3.43-3.el5 openldap-servers-overlays-2.3.43-3.el5 nss_ldap-253-22.el5_4 openldap-clients-2.3.43-3.el5
PROBLEM:
I have notice that when an ldap users' password expires, and pwdGraceAuthNLimit is set to a non-zero value...in my case it is set to 1 for testing purposes, the user is allowed to login one time. The next login forces a password change.
On the first login, allowed via pwdGraceAuthNLimit, there is no announcement sent to the user telling them that the password has expired.
You should actually get a prompt to change your password immediately.
I'm not seeing that. If the number of permitted logins specified by pwdGraceAuthNLimit has not counted an equal number of attempted logins, the login is allowed with no warnings. When the number of attempts to login finally exceeds pwdGraceAuthNLimit, then and only then is the user prompted to change the password.
BTW, if your PAM setup was correct, you should have seen warnings about expiry before this.
Did you bother testing with a guaranteed-to-work tool, such as (with appropriate values to -D option) 'ldapwhoami -e ppolicy' ?
I hadn't but having done so at your suggestion, and using -x since I am not using sasl, it yields the following:
$ ldapwhoami -x ppolicy anonymous Result: Success (0)
Please see the man page. You need to provide a DN and password (e.g. ldapwhoami -x -D uid=xxx..... -W .....), but if you aren't familiar enough with the tools, please read the man pages.
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not sure of the significance of this test and what it would have shown with regard to the pwdGraceAuthNLimit warnings.
Well, you have to use the test correctly.
Nor that they will have to change their password on the next login. I have to wonder if there is also a missing announcement that might tell the user how many more logins they are permitted given the value of pwdGraceAuthNLimit
It was suggested that the problem may be in the pam configuration.
I am using the following /etc/pam.d/system-auth file that is autogenerated by authconfig:
#%PAM-1.0 # This file is auto-generated. # User changes will be destroyed the next time authconfig is run. auth required pam_env.so auth sufficient pam_unix.so nullok try_first_pass auth requisite pam_succeed_if.so uid >= 500 quiet auth sufficient pam_ldap.so use_first_pass auth required pam_deny.so
account required pam_unix.so broken_shadow account sufficient pam_localuser.so account sufficient pam_succeed_if.so uid < 500 quiet account [default=bad success=ok user_unknown=ignore] pam_ldap.so account required pam_permit.so
This should be pam_deny.so, but is likely not the cause of your problems.
I tried changing this entry to pam_deny.so and while it didn't force a warning to be printed, it also simply denied access to the user as it should have.
password requisite pam_cracklib.so try_first_pass retry=3 password sufficient pam_unix.so md5 shadow nis nullok try_first_pass use_authtok password sufficient pam_ldap.so use_authtok password required pam_deny.so
session optional pam_keyinit.so revoke session required pam_limits.so session optional pam_mkhomedir.so session [success=1 default=ignore] pam_succeed_if.so service in crond quiet use_uid session required pam_unix.so session optional pam_ldap.so
I am testing by logging into the client with ssh. I also have many of the pwd* values set fairly low for quick testing. This is the default policy in use:
dn: cn=Standard,ou=Policies,dc=mydomain,dc=com objectClass: top objectClass: device objectClass: pwdPolicy cn: Standard pwdAttribute: userPassword pwdLockoutDuration: 15 pwdInHistory: 6 pwdCheckQuality: 0 pwdMinLength: 5 pwdAllowUserChange: TRUE pwdMustChange: TRUE pwdMaxFailure: 3 pwdFailureCountInterval: 120 pwdSafeModify: FALSE pwdLockout: TRUE pwdReset: TRUE structuralObjectClass: device entryUUID: 421d8558-1a33-102f-8b9e-a5541f2aaf30 creatorsName: cn=Manager,dc=mydomain,dc=com createTimestamp: 20100702143843Z pwdMinAge: 0 pwdMaxAge: 300 pwdGraceAuthNLimit: 1 pwdExpireWarning: 86400 entryCSN: 20100702154010Z#000000#00#000000 modifiersName: cn=Manager,dc=mydomain,dc=com modifyTimestamp: 20100702154010Z
This is the test users profile:
dn: uid=ldap1,dc=mydomain,dc=com uid: ldap1 cn: ldap1 objectClass: account objectClass: posixAccount objectClass: top uidNumber: 10001 gidNumber: 150 homeDirectory: /home/ldap1 loginShell: /bin/csh gecos: ldap test user pwdPolicySubentry: cn=Standard,ou=Policies,dc=mydomain,dc=com structuralObjectClass: account entryUUID: 334312be-1a33-102f-8a83-a5541f2aaf30 creatorsName: cn=Manager,dc=mydomain,dc=com createTimestamp: 20100702143818Z pwdHistory: 20100702151010Z#1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40#38#{SSHA}BIxGPXPqBY+ 2yK6pY2i+6l7UbE/gaVhY pwdHistory: 20100702154253Z#1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40#38#{SSHA}q4inOFGO+0N c6T0q6FYiiMrPCTTUqQdr pwdHistory: 20100702183229Z#1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40#38#{SSHA}3T0Cna8AGIg X69V7zsDxGiTx/q0ceBnc userPassword:: e1NTSEF9WkZ0ekJrUWVOQVJrMDhFbDJXd0VNaU1maWlGVURaT28= pwdChangedTime: 20100702183229Z pwdGraceUseTime: 20100702184519Z entryCSN: 20100702184519Z#000000#00#000000 modifiersName: cn=Manager,dc=mydomain,dc=com modifyTimestamp: 20100702184519Z
I have examined various log files and enabled debugging in system-auth (now removed to show the standard autogenerated content) for any clues. I have examined various pam modules and library files with strings to see if I could get an idea as to which module may be at fault.
I have to admit I am no pam expert and given the number of combinations and variations possible in the system-auth file alone, I don't feel comfortable modifying this file to any great extent.
I have omitted the slapd.conf and client ldap.conf files assuming that they are not at fault and don't have any obvious omissions which could cause a warning messages to be suppressed during login, but can supply them if required.
You need to supply the pam_ldap ldap.conf (/etc/ldap.conf on RH), specifically verify whether 'pam_lookup_policy' is set to 'yes'. Please see 'man pam_ldap'.
These are the uncommented lines from my /etcldap.conf file:
host 16.112.240.51 base dc=osn,dc=cxo,dc=cpqcorp,dc=net
binddn cn=Manager,dc=osn,dc=cxo,dc=cpqcorp,dc=net rootpw {SSHA}RHVddPmANdnsYDuMzFlM/D4D7aAH1yYG
This is invalid in ldap.conf
rootbinddn cn=Manager,dc=osn,dc=cxo,dc=cpqcorp,dc=net
nss_base_group dc=osn,dc=cxo,dc=cpqcorp,dc=net?one?&(objectCategory=group)(gidnumber=*)
ppolicy_hash_cleartext
This is invalid in ldap.conf
ppolicy_use_lockout
This is invalid in ldap.conf
pam_lookup_policy yes ppolicy_default "cn=Standard,ou=Policies,dc=osn,dc=cxo,dc=cpqcorp,dc=net"
This is invalid in ldap.conf
ssl no
nss_initgroups_ignoreusers root,ldap,named,avahi,haldaemon,dbus,radvd,tomcat,radiusd,news,mailman,ntp ,smmsp,xfs
pam_password exop
bind_policy soft
If the default system-auth file generated by the authconfig utility defeats a feature of the ldap or other system modules,
It doesn't "defeat" a feature, but the feature does need to be specifically enabled.
That's the key then......how do we specifically enable this feature ?
we need to report this to Red Hat and have the problem corrected.
Of course, then this entire discussion is more or less off-topic here ...
Not sure why ?
You haven't determined what the problem is with your configuration, and the configuration supplied by 3rd-parties supplying binaries of pam_ldap is not really relevant here, but should be taken up with said 3rd-parties.
Regards, Buchan