Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 09:31:05AM -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:45:14PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
>>>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1075
>>>
>>> The only thing is that I'm not sure if 72 is the right default minssf
value
>>> for IPA provider, as default IPA installation works with 56 as the highest
>>> possible value for me. In default SSSD installation, this means that
>>> communication with IPA server will be rejected with no information about the
>>> reason being min SSF. I think this will be very confusing to SSSD users.
>>>
>>> Can anyone give me a hint how to proceed? Lower the default value in SSSD or
>>> do the change in IPA?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Jan
>>
>> The patch itself looks good to me.
>>
>> I don't know what's causing the problem, though. I think that the SSF
>> requirement is set in nsslapd-minssf attribute in cn=config on the server
>> side. My (quite recent) IPA server install has the option set to 0,
>> which means "no restrictions".
>>
>> Rob, is there any other place on the server that sets the SSF values?
>
> Yes that is the right direction and the 389-ds and IPA default is 0.
> There is a nsslapd-localssf option as well which I believe only
> applies to ldapi.
>
> rob
Ok, I'm confused now.
When I perform an GSSAPI search, ldapsearch reports "SASL SSF: 56".
Where does it come from? Is there any override in cyrus-sasl perhaps?
(The openldap source says the value comes from sasl_getprop(), I haven't
looked deeper yet)
Apparently that is a known bug in the SASL library, it always returns 56.
$ ldapsearch -Y GSSAPI -O "minssf=56" -b cn=example,dc=com
uid=admin
SASL/GSSAPI authentication started
SASL username: host/ipa.example.com(a)EXAMPLE.COM
SASL SSF: 56
SASL data security layer installed.
<LDIF follows>
Setting -O "minssf=$value" to anything above 56 then gives:
SASL(-4): no mechanism available: No worthy mechs found
Not sure, maybe the 389-ds guys know.
rob
rob