Quoting Sven Mäder maeder@phys.ethz.ch:
Thank you very much for this!
In our case we need access to dn.subtree I believe because admins are supposed to have full control, ie. add and delete accounts. What stopped me was the lack of documentation for the "control" keyword but after a bit of sleep and reading your answer I found a some deep down in the Faq-O-Matic bit it does not seem to cover all of it.
So, as I gather, "by * none" is the default processing stops,
"by * continue" makes it possible to add rules to the same object and
"by * break" resets the processong?
And finally, there seems to be additional switches available for the control processing but I cannot find them documented *anywhere*.
Thanks again,
//per
Hi
You could insert something like this:
to dn.exact="ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com" attrs=children by group="cn=admingroup,ou=ldap,dc=example,dc=com" write stop by * break to dn.children="ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com" attrs=@inetOrgPerson,@organizationalUnit,@posixAccount, @shadowAccount,entry by group="cn=admingroup,ou=ldap,dc=example,dc=com" write stop by * break
This will grant administrative rights by the specified group to:
- the "children" attr of the entry: ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com
- all attrs of children of: ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com in the specified objectClasses plus the entries itself
- all other users/groups will continue with ACL evaluation (by * break)
This will prevent modifying the entry: ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com If you do not need that, replace the two ACLs with:
to dn.subtree=ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com" ...
But you have to add these ACLs before the rule with: to attrs=userPassword ... otherwise if you add it at the end, the "by * none" will prevent all access.
ou=ldap is just an ou that contains my slapd admin groups, for example:
dn: ou=ldap,dc=example,dc=com objectClass: organizationalUnit ou: ldap
dn: cn=admingroup,ou=ldap,dc=example,dc=com objectClass: groupOfNames member: uid=someuser,ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com cn: admingroup
Hope that helps a bit with the bleeding :) And carefully test your ACLs, I had to do a lot of try and error to get it right.
Kind regards Sven
On 03/18/2018 04:54 PM, Lists Nethead wrote:
Hi all,
First post here, and it is asking for advice on an access rule. Setup is,
+-dc=example,dc=com +--ou=somedomain +---uid=someuser,ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com +--ou=someotherdomain +---uid=otheruser,ou=someotherdomain,dc=example,dc=com +--ou=yetanotherdomain
The ruleset so far that seems to work is
to dn.base="" by * read to dn.base="cn=subschema" by * read to attrs=userPassword by dn.base="cn=admin,dc=example,dc=com" write by dn.base="uid=otheradmin,ou=System,dc=example,dc=com" write by self write by anonymous auth by * none to * by dn.base="uid=someadmin,ou=System,dc=example,dc=com" w rite by self read by peername.ip=<address>%255.255.255.0 read by peern ame.ip=<address>%255.255.255.0 read by peername.ip=<address>%255.255.2 55.0 read by users tls_ssf=256 read by * none
What I want next is that "uid=someuser,ou=somedomain,dc=example,dc=com" should be able to administer accounts in "ou=somedomain" and likewise for other "ou=".
My guess is that a group with admin accounts is the way to go but right now my eyes are bleeding after reading the whole day about access rules...
Thanks,
//per