On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Christian Bösch wrote: > hi, > i have an acl set to allow only some ips to connect unencrypted: > {0}to dn.children="dc=abc,dc=net" by peername.ip=10.10.40.100 read break by peername.ip=10.10.8.49 read break by ssf=128 read break by * none > > olcSecurity: ssf=0 tls=0 simple_bind=0 update_ssf=0 > > this works in general, but if i restart slapd i get from the defined ips from above 'confidentially required'. then i have to set ssf=1 then back to ssf=0 to make > it work again? It's not entirely clear what you're getting at, but I note that the only "ssf=0" in your post is under olcSecurity. If you're changing that, then the global SSF requirement of your server will be affected, and no ACL will allow an exemption under any circumstances. In other words, set the olcSecurity ssf= to the absolute minimum SSF required of any client connecting. So if you want to allow 10.10.40.100 (or whatever) to have ssf=0....well, there's your answer for olcSecurity, too.

> anyone an idea why? > > /thx.chris > > > >

Maybe trace out where you start and where you're going: * stop slapd, check with slapcat -n 0 what your initial ssf= value is

* start slapd and check with ldapsearch that that ssf= value actually is present in cn=config

* verify that you're getting behavior that matches what cn=config says

* do your ldapmodify to ssf=1, ldapsearch cn=config to verify, verify behavior

* do your ldapmodify to ssf=0, ldapsearch cn=config to verify, verify behavior

Which of these work as expected? Which don't?

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Christian Bösch wrote: >> * start slapd and check with ldapsearch that that ssf= value actually is >> present in cn=config >> > as i expect: olcSecurity: ssf=0 tls=0 simple_bind=0 update_ssf=0 > >> * verify that you're getting behavior that matches what cn=config says > > now i'm getting Confidentiality required (13) for all binds, also for the > excluded ips in the ACL > that is not as it should be. No, doesn't sound like it is. Are you verifying this with a current version (2.4.23 or RE24/HEAD CVS)? If so, this is probably worthy of an ITS (http://www.openldap.org/its/).