On 04/16/2014 01:21 AM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote:
Ok. I have no problem with that, but... Shouldn't it be better
behaviour to show this changes in 389DS? At least in the audit log.
These changes are not showing up in the audit log? That sounds like a
bug, which may have been fixed after version 1.2.5
Because if you are looking for an change date or modifiers DN and you
have no logs, how can you get where the change comes from?
The access log by default logs operations from _external_ clients. The
way winsync works is that it polls AD for changes and writes them using
_internal_ operations. So if having winsync operations in the access
log is critically important to you, and you can tolerate the noise of
all of the additional internal operations, then you can enable access
logging of internal operations. The reason why we do not enable access
logging of internal operations by default is that it adds a _lot_ of
information to the access log, something that most admins do not want to
have to sift through.
Also, if you are looking for something specific (e.g. debugging), you
can enable the Replication error log level
http://port389.org/wiki/FAQ#Troubleshooting
In my case, I am not the AD admin and I would like to probe that some
changes had been made in AD and replicated to 389DS.
See above.
Regards,
Moses.
2014-04-15 15:44 GMT+02:00 Rich Megginson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
On 04/15/2014 03:23 AM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote:
I think there have been a misunderstood. The problem isn't the
codification.
If we change the givenname (for example) in AD then the
replication agreement between 389DS and AD writes that change in
LDAP (It doesn't matter what type of change, base64 or not), but
the 389DS logs doesn't show that "update" in the attribute.
Right. The winsync operations are _internal_ operations. You'll
have to enable access logging of internal operations to see these
in the access log.
Eventually, I look for that change in another server with
multimaster replication and I saw the change. ¿Is that normal? I
mean:
AD <==========> 389 DS (1) <==========> 389 DS (2)
make a Recive the change Recive
the change from 389DS(1)
change but doesn't show it and
show the change in the logs.
and sends in his logs
it to 389DS(1) ¿why doesn't it show
the change?
Regards,
Moses
2014-04-14 18:07 GMT+02:00 Rich Megginson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
On 04/14/2014 09:35 AM, Steven Crothers wrote:
The problem is that the sn and givenName attributes
contain the same
data, but the data is now in base64, so it's not human
readable.
Is it base64 encoded in AD, or only in 389?
Have you base64 decoded one of the values to see what it is?
Is it base64 encoded as seen by ldapsearch, or is it actually
base64 encoded in the db? Note that in LDAP (but not
necessarily in AD, which violates several LDAP standards), if
there is trailing whitespace in an attribute value,
ldapsearch will base64 encode the value when it displays it,
since the trailing whitespace is not "visible".
I'm not sure how to get around that myself.
Steven Crothers
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Rich Megginson
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 04/14/2014 02:49 AM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote:
Hello,
Unfortunately in our organization we have a
replication agreement between
389 DS and an Active Directory.
For some reason, some Active Directory admin has
run a script which has
change the "givenname" and "sn" attrs (now they are
in base64) and that
change have been replicated to the 389 DS (1).
The issue is: This changes coming from
replication aren't shown in the
server logs with the AD agreement, I saw them in the
access file and audit
file but from another 389 DS (2) server with
multimaster replication
agreement not in the server with the AD agreement ¿Is
this normal? We are
using 1.2.5 version.
I don't understand what the problem is. Can you be
more specific?
AD <=====> 389 DS (1) <=====> 389 DS (2)
Regards,
Moses.
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
