[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: C LDAP API: security considerations

To: "Anoop Anantha (Exchange)" <anoopa@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: C LDAP API: security considerations
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <kurt@boolean.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:27:21 -0800
Cc: 'Mark Smith' <mcs@netscape.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Paul Leach (Exchange)" <paulle@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <19398D273324D3118A2B0008C7E9A569055B41DA@SIT.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
Resent-date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:29:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"v8nXMC.A.GSC.JbfM4"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

At 11:05 AM 11/16/99 -0800, Anoop Anantha (Exchange) wrote:
>Having applications manually chase referrals on a case by case basis
>involves quite a bit of extra code on the app's part and may discourage
>people from writing to this LDAP API.
>
>How about Kurt's initial suggestion of discouraging rebinding when clear
>text credentials are used? This would prompt apps to use strong auth in
>general and would also solve this particular security problem.

I'm now thinking that even this is unwise.  If my public server
sends me to a "root" server and that "root" server sends me
to foo server... I may not want to expose myself to foo.

I am thinking that apps wanting anonymous auto chasing should
be able to just enable some LDAP_OPT_.  But the default being
the most conservative and not chase.

Kurt

----
Kurt D. Zeilenga		<kurt@boolean.net>
Net Boolean Incorporated	<http://www.boolean.net/>

References:
- RE: C LDAP API: security considerations
  - From: "Anoop Anantha (Exchange)" <anoopa@Exchange.Microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Details on TCP sequence numbers (RE: C API: minor comments)
Next by Date: RE: C API: minor comments
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread