[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[ldapext] (no subject)
While I understand the reasoning for the suggestions, I thought I should
bring out one point for discussion:
Is not one purpose of standardizing password/account policy to allow
other agents (aside from the DUA itself) to interact with this policy?
If so, then changing some of these attributes to NO-USER-MODIFICATION
limits the ability of these agents to interact with the policy. What if
the agent wants to use this schema to manage the policy itself?
Bob
=================================================================
I also agree.
Ludovic.
Andrew Sciberras wrote:
> Hi
>
> Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>
>> While I worry a bit about your implementation (though it's not really
>> my place to), I agree with your final assessment, we should change
>> these to NO-USER-MODIFICATION.
>>
>> Anyone disagree?
>
>
> This sounds alright to me.
> Since we're actually making some the the state attributes
> NO-USER-MODIFICATION, perhaps we should look at the others as well.
> I'm thinking that pwdAccountLockedTime, pwdFailureTime and
> pwdPolicySubentry should also be included in this list.
>
>> Jim
>
>
> Andrew.
>
>>
>> >>> Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com> 4/26/05 8:41 AM >>>
>> I kept meaning to raise this question, but it seems to have fallen
thru
>> the cracks. For the OpenLDAP implementation, I needed to change these
>> operational attributes to NO-USER-MODIFICATION:
>> pwdChangedTime, pwdGraceUseTime, and pwdHistory
>>
>> We have a problem because of the way we process a password change -
if a
>> user is changing their own password, that Modify request is performed
>> using the user's identity. To do bookkeeping on the above operational
>> attributes, we internally append some modify operations to the user's
>> Modify request, and then the augmented request is passed down to the
>> usual Modify processing. One other factor in our implementation is
that
>> user-modifiable attributes are subject to ACL checks, non-modifiable
>> attributes are not. So, userPassword is user-modifiable, and
typically
>> users are given permission to write their own password. But they
>> shouldn't have permission to write the above three attributes,
because
>> then they can just bypass a lot of the policies that rely on those
>> attributes.
>>
>> So with the default definitions, we have a problem because the user
may
>> have permission to update the userPassword attr, but no permissions
to
>> the other attrs.
>>
>> Alternatively we can break things up into two separate Modify
>> operations, doing the user's original request and then using system
>> privileges to handle the bookkeeping, but I'm not keen on that
approach.
>> It introduces some lag in a replication scenario, where the password
>> change itself will get replicated separately from the bookkeeping
>> update.
>>
>> Fundamentally I believe NO-USER-MODIFICATION is appropriate for these
>> attributes. Issues with our implementation can be worked around, but
I'd
>> rather clear this up regardless.
>>
>> --
>> -- Howard Chu
>> Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
>> _http://www.symas.com <http://www.symas.com/>
<http://www.symas.com/>_
>> _http://highlandsun.com/hyc_
>> Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ldapext mailing list
>> _Ldapext@ietf.org <mailto:Ldapext@ietf.org>_
>> _https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext_
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ldapext mailing list
>> Ldapext@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ldapext mailing list
> Ldapext@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext
--
Ludovic Poitou Sun Microsystems Inc.
Software Architect Directory Server Group
http://blogs.sun.com/Ludo/ Grenoble, France
Sun Microsystems requires the following notice:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext