On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:46:39PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/12/2009 06:46 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> this patch add the possibility to validate the credentials obtained from
> a Kerberos server with a local keytab. The boolean option krb5_validate
> switches the validation on and off. It is disabled by default in the
> kerberos provider and enabled by default in the IPA provider.
> Typically root privileges are needed to read a keytab. As a consequence
> if validation is enabled the privileges cannot be drop before starting
> krb5_child, but only after reading the keytab.
> sssd-devel mailing list
In the sssd-ipa manpage, I think we should change the "please note" to
"Please note that this default differs from the traditional kerberos
I think that referring to the "underlying Kerberos provider" makes it
In create_send_buffer(), you assign buf->size based on sizeof(int), but
you're using uint32_t for the actual data. This is a waste of memory on
64-bit integer systems, and a serious error on a 16-bit integer system.
(Not that we ever expect to support such a system) If you're copying in
a 32-bit number, please guarantee that the space is allocated for a
Please add a comment in fork_child() stating why the value of
KRB5_VALIDATE dictates whether to assume the user's identity.
I think this is a serious error: you're only validating against
first entry in the keytab. It's possible for a keytab to have many
different principals, as well as multiple enctypes for the same
principal. We need to iterate through all keytab entries and test first
for the principal we need to validate against and not fail until all
enctypes for the sought-after principal have been tried.
ok, I look for the first key with a matching realm or try the last one
in the keytab file.
get_and_save_tgt(): Again a comment would be nice around
noting that it was being done here after being deferred from earlier so
that we can validate the TGT.
General question: if we're moving where become_user() is called, will
this affect our SELinux policy?
I think it will not affect the policy, because the krb5_child inherits
the SELinux labels from the parent, but I will check with Dan.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sssd-devel mailing list