Issue 8552 - Strange behaviour of attribute using password policy overlay
Summary: Strange behaviour of attribute using password policy overlay
Status: VERIFIED FEEDBACK
Alias: None
Product: OpenLDAP
Classification: Unclassified
Component: slapd (show other issues)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: --- normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ondřej Kuzník
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2016-12-19 08:29 UTC by a.rossini@cineca.it
Modified: 2021-03-01 16:00 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description a.rossini@cineca.it 2016-12-19 08:29:22 UTC
Full_Name: Angelo Rossini
Version: OpenLDAP-LTB 2.4.44.1
OS: Debian 8 x86-64
URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
Submission from: (NULL) (130.186.19.204)


Hi,

I'm using the password policy overlay with this configuration:

pwdAttribute: userPassword
pwdAllowUserChange: TRUE
pwdCheckModule: /usr/local/openldap/lib64/check_password.so
pwdCheckQuality: 2
pwdExpireWarning: 432000
pwdFailureCountInterval: 300
pwdGraceAuthNLimit: 0
pwdInHistory: 5
pwdLockout: TRUE
pwdLockoutDuration: 120
pwdMaxAge: 63072000
pwdMaxFailure: 5
pwdMinAge: 0
pwdMinLength: 8
pwdMustChange: TRUE
pwdSafeModify: TRUE

When I try to change the password and the password is one of the last five in
history I find that attributes pwdChangedTime and modifyTimestamp have changed
their values.

I think that this behaviour is quite strange, because I haven't changed anything
on the entry.

Can someone explain me if is possible to avoid this behaviour?

Regards,

Angelo.
Comment 1 Ondřej Kuzník 2021-03-01 11:27:46 UTC
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:29:22AM +0000, a.rossini@cineca.it wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm using the password policy overlay with this configuration:
> 
> [...]
> 
> When I try to change the password and the password is one of the last five in
> history I find that attributes pwdChangedTime and modifyTimestamp have changed
> their values.
> 
> I think that this behaviour is quite strange, because I haven't changed anything
> on the entry.
> 
> Can someone explain me if is possible to avoid this behaviour?

Hi Angelo,
thanks for the report but I'm not seeing this in current master (2.5).
If you still experience this, would you be able to provide more
information how to reproduce this behaviour?

Thanks,