jvcelak@redhat.com wrote:
> Full_Name: Jan Vcelak
> Version: master
> OS: Linux
> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/jvcelak-20110912-syncrepl-allow-unsetting-of-tls-options.patch
> Submission from: (NULL) (209.132.186.34)
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm just passing a patch submitted to our bugzilla:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734187
>
> To sum it up: If tls_cert/tls_key syncrepl options are not specified, server
> setting is inherited and used. According to various reports on the Internet,
> this is a feature, not a bug.

Relying on hearsay "According to various reports on the Internet" is a stupid 
way to get information, particularly when it's already documented in the 
slapd.conf(5) and slapd-config(5) manpages.

> However it forces a replica to use a client
> certificate for authentication, because the tls_cert and tls_key options can not
> be disabled.
>
> The patch allows tls_* options to be disabled, like this: "tls_cert="
> Without the patch, "file not found" error will occur.

> The patch is written by the submitter of the bug report - Patrick Monnerat (pm
> at datasphere dot ch).

Thanks for passing along the report, but I'm not convinced this is a 
legitimate issue. Servers that trust each other for replication should accept 
each other's TLS certificates. As I see it, if their certs aren't working in 
this configuration then their certificates were created with the wrong usage 
flags, and this is not an OpenLDAP issue.
-- 
   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
   Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/

On Monday 12 September 2011 19:00:08, Howard Chu wrote:
> Thanks for passing along the report, but I'm not convinced this is a
> legitimate issue. Servers that trust each other for replication should
> accept each other's TLS certificates. As I see it, if their certs aren't
> working in this configuration then their certificates were created with
> the wrong usage flags, and this is not an OpenLDAP issue.

You are definitely right. But disabling the options still might be useful for 
some people. Including the author of the patch. I think it is a very simple 
change which adds some extra bonus to current functionality. Nothing critical 
and no regressions are likely.

It would be great, if you could include the patch even if you do not 
absolutely agree with disabling the client certificate authentication for 
replication.

-- 
Jan Včelák
Base Operating Systems Brno
Red Hat Inc.

I note that third-party patch submissions cannot be accepted per our IPR policies.

The original author is required to submit their own patches.

-- Kurt

changed notes

Hi,

I am the author of the patch at:
ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/jvcelak-20110912-syncrepl-allow-unsetting-of-tls-options.patch

and I want to argue in favor of it:

1) In a configuration using a simple bind to authenticate a client, you
have no choice but using ldaps to protect password sniffing: this
requires a SERVER certificate only.

2) Since primary and replicated servers can have their role reversed
(i.e.: after failure and/or recovery of the former primary server), the
configurations should be kept as symmetric as possible (except for
syncrepl) in order to speed-up switch: SSL in both servers should thus
have the same configuration.

3) syncrepl then forces SSL to use a client certificate rather than a
simple bind for authentication: this implies "normal" clients will also
need a certificate... we are then in a situation lying very far from
using ldaps for encryption only :-(

4) Using separate server and client certificates within a server,
although safer, does not resolve my problem.

For the above reason, I would really like to see my patch included in
openldap code, or at least an equivalent solution.

Because "third-party patch submissions cannot be accepted per our IPR
policies. The original author is required to submit their own patches.",
do you need me to re-submit it ?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
Regards,

Patrick Monnerat
DATASPHERE S.A.
16, chemin des Aulx
CH-1228 Plan-les-Ouates (GE)

moved from Incoming to Software Bugs

changed notes

changed notes

changed notes

changed notes

changed notes

Hi Patrick,

What we need is for you to simply reply to this ITS with your IPR 
statement, and the patch attached.  This will allow us to include it.

IPR guidelines are here: 
<https://www.openldap.org/devel/contributing.html#notice>

Thanks,
Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Product Architect
Symas Corporation
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:
<http://www.symas.com>

On 10/19/2017 05:07 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> Hi Patrick,

Hi Quanah,
Thanks for your directives and future action.

>
> What we need is for you to simply reply to this ITS with your IPR 
> statement, and the patch attached.  This will allow us to include it.
>

Here they are:

I, Patrick Monnerat, hereby place the following modifications to 
OpenLDAP Software (and only these modifications) into the public domain. 
Hence, these modifications may be freely used and/or redistributed for 
any purpose with or without attribution and/or other notice.

Patrick

changed notes

changed notes

changed notes
changed state Open to Test

changed notes
changed state Test to Release

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 03:50:48PM +0000, patrick@monnerat.net wrote:
> Hi Quanah,
> Thanks for your directives and future action.

Hi Patrick,
thank you for your patch, it has now been pushed to master
(0f9afae02d9425e54f070ecd5ea8b954115e092b) and will also be part
(e5f945bab40482e2045fede3fbe9a04210808a93) of the upcoming 2.4.48
release.

Thanks,

-- 
Ondřej Kuzník
Senior Software Engineer
Symas Corporation                       http://www.symas.com
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP

Fixed in master
Fixed in RE24 (2.4.48)

changed notes
changed state Release to Closed