[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: 'userpassword' handling in backend
The userPassword attribute is defined to have a binary syntax. The entry2str
function LDIF-encodes values, and in LDIF, binary attributes get base64
The back-perl modify code assumes all of its attributes are ordinary
strings. It probably should be doing a syntax check of some kind. I guess
this is a bug in the modify code; attempting to modify any binary attribute
will cause problems.
(e.g., jpegphoto, usercertificate...)
My personal feeling here is that treating everything as binary would be
preferable to using LDIF, but it's not clear which side would be harder to
add vs modify.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Kervin L. Pierre
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 1:12 PM
> To: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: 'userpassword' handling in backend
> the way the userpassword is handled seems to inconsistent. If an entry is
> added with the 'userpassword' attribute then the value is encoded in
> base64 before being passed to back-perl. This is done in entry2str()
> function. If the 'userpassword' is being set with an ldapmodify, then the
> value is not encoded before being passed to the backend.
> My question is, what are the benefits of base64 encoding the userpassword
> attribute? If it is done with the ldapadd, shouldn't be done with the
> ldapmod as well?