On 10/26/2012 11:41 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:10:45AM +0200, Tomas Brandysky wrote:
>>> You can also use a comma-separated list in the ldap_access_order
>>> parameter of sssd.conf and then define both service and host for a user.
>>>
>>
>> this is not a solution because defining service for user in LDAP means
>> to grant user access to this service not only on a particular server but
>> on all servers the same user can access too (for example because of some
>> other services).
>>
>> This is real scenario:
>>
>> - two servers both running openvpn and ssh services - both configured to
>> authenticate users against LDAP
>>
>> - I want user "one" to have access to:
>> - openvpn service on server1
>> - ssh service on server2
>>
>>
>> I'm not able to manage this with sssd even though I try it with comma-
>> separated list in the ldap_access_order parameter. I don't think this
>> scenario is so rare in other companies too. This is a quite common
>> practice in larger companies maintaining dozens of servers and services
>> to grant users access to specific services on specific servers only (as
>> we can do easily with pam_ldap).
>>
>> I will be very surprised if many other companies won't request this
>> feature being present in sssd if this is a new official way how to
>> handle LDAP authentication in RHEL 6.
>>
>>
>>> For a finer-grained access control, you probably want IPA's HBAC as
>>> Sumit said.
>>
>> I got a look to at IPA's HBAC and it seems to be overkill to me. I can
>> imagine such a solution in very large enterprises where kinda more
>> sophisticated integrated security information management solution might
>> come in handy.
>>
>> I think our company(as many others) will stick with "old" pam_ldap
>> solution which was there working since RHEL4. At least until this
>> feature is integrated to sssd.
>>
>> Tomas
>
> I'm sorry the current means of access control do not work for you.
>
> Unfortunately we have finite time and resources and the next 1.10 release
> is already getting quite big. I would suggest raising a feature request
> via the usual RHEL channels to bump the priority up.
As we have valid RHEL support paid I will try to file such a request.
>
> Or, if you'd be willing to work with us and contribute a patch, I'll be
> glad to help with getting you up to speed and getting the patch
> accepted upstream.
Thanks for making such a suggestion ;) but I'm not a developer not have
time for that.
I was just confronted with sssd in RHEL/Centos 6 as IT administrator and
since I manage couple of production servers in midsize company using
LDAP authentication and because I'm recently preparing our environment
to move from Centos 5 to Centos 6 I was trying to find out how it's
supposed to work "the new way".
Tomas