Re: search request not blocked by ACLs

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@symas.com>]

--On Thursday, September 5, 2019 10:35 AM +0200 Manuela Mandache 
<manuela3mandache@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le mer. 4 sept. 2019 à 16:00, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@symas.com> a
> écrit :
>
> --On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:56 PM +0200 Manuela Mandache
> <manuela3mandache@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > olcAccess: {0}to * by dn.base="cn=admin,cn=config" manage by
> > dn.base="cn=adm
> >  in,dc=example,dc=com" manage by * break
> > olcAccess: {1}to dn.base="" by * read
> > olcAccess: {2}to dn.base=cn=Subschema by * read
> > olcAccess: {3}to dn.subtree="dc=example,dc=com" attrs=userPassword by *
> > auth
> > olcAccess: {4}to dn.subtree="dc=example,dc=com" attrs=entry by * read
> > olcAccess: {5}to dn.subtree="dc=example,dc=com" attrs=cn,mail by * read
> > olcAccess: {6}to * by anonymous none by * read
>
> On what cn=config entry have you set these ACLs?
>
>
>
>
> They're on
> olcDatabase={2}mdb,cn=config
> This is the DB containing the actual data of the directory, with
> olcSuffix: dc=example,dc=com

Given that, I would make the following notes:

a) rootDNs are never subject to ACLs, so the access for cn=admin,cn=config 
manage in {0} is suspect, as I would infer that is a rootdn.

b) ACL {1} is invalid for this database.  It should be set in the dn: 
olcDatabase={-1}frontend,cn=config database

c) ACL {2} is invalid for this database.  See solution listed in (b)

d) ACL {3} should only give auth access to anonymous, not *

e) ACLs 3-5 should be rewritten to drop the dn.subtree="dc=example,dc=com" 
bit entirely.  You're already only setting ACLs for that database, no need 
to list that restriction.  You can also combine ACLs 4 & 5.

olcAccess: {3} to attrs=userPassword by anonymous auth
olcAccess: {4} to attrs=entry,cn,mail by * read
olcAccess: {5} to * by anonymous none by * read

As for your question in general, I don't think you understand how ACLs work 
in relation to incoming search requests.  The server did exactly what your 
ACLs said it should do: It provided no information when someone tried to 
search for data using an attribute that access is not granted to, and 
correctly returned 0 entries.  It sounds as though you expected the 
connection to be dropped when the search was initiated because it was 
filtering off of sn.  That is now how things work.

Regards,
Quanah


--

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