Ok, ok! I digress, you guys a a bunch of very very smart folks. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Kaiser
Sent: 11 mars 2005 14:22
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..

I just pop a hub in between the DC and the switch and then tie my laptop
with ethereal running into the hub. I'm with you... I don't like running
anything on DCs. I've found that I can unplug a DC, plug in a small hub,
and plug it all back together without losing connectivity, assuming I
don't drop the cable while I'm doing it... :-)

**********************
Charlie Kaiser
MCSE, CCNA
Systems Engineer
Essex Credit / Brickwalk
510 595 5083
**********************
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis 
> Ouellet
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 11:11 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> I just looked at ethereal and I hate the fact that you need to install

> winpcap on a DC. I actually hate installing anything on a DC for that 
> matter. I'm trying to do all the damage control I can do over here; 
> Knowing how completely paranoid you are <g> you'd probably fire 
> everybody around here if you had the power :) Things I wouldn't have 
> done myself during the beta of NT5.0 (given the little knowledge I had

> about AD back then)
>  
> Francis
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: 11 mars 2005 13:50
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> 
> Heh. I was so hip on giving help on how to look for this in a sniffer 
> that I completely missed the GC in a DMZ point. Oy. I am getting old 
> or tired or both.
>  
> Yes, do not put a GC in the DMZ. Yes, do use AD/AM, especially if all 
> the provider needs is a list of valid email addresses or something 
> along those lines. That should be an exceedingly simple sync to 
> perform.
>  
>   joe
>  
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis 
> Ouellet
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 1:19 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> 
> I was toying with the idea of using ADAM myself but the admins around 
> here (only been here a few months) don't have any notion whatsoever of

> security boundaries. You don't want to know the rest ;-)
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coleman, 
> Hunter
> Sent: 11 mars 2005 13:12
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> 
> While we haven't outsourced our anti-spam stuff, we're in the same 
> boat with the AD address validation. We're likely going to spin up an 
> ADAM instance and have the queries run against that, so that 1) we can

> control what information the anti-spam software has access to and 2) 
> it's not directly touching our DCs/GCs. It also lets you keep your DCs

> out of the DMZ. Something you may want to consider...
>  
> Hunter
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis 
> Ouellet
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 10:55 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply Joe! The url provided was extremely helpful. The 
> reason I'm asking all of this is because the management has decided to

> outsource anti-spam technology to a 3rd party that uses our AD to 
> validate e-mail addresses.
> Unfortunately their "security through obscurity" methods are scaring 
> the crap out of me. They won't disclose the type of bind they are 
> doing agains't one of our GC in the DMZ. I guess I could sniff the 
> incomming traffic and figure out what type of bind they are doing?
>  
> Thanks,
> Francis
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: 11 mars 2005 12:17
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> 
> Depends on the auth options chosen. By default, ldp will use kerberos 
> as will my adfind. The auth option is called LDAP_AUTH_NEGOTIATE which

> is a generic security services (GSS
> - SPNEGO) provider and will try different mechanisms starting out with

> kerberos but NTLM is also an option there. You can force it to bind 
> with a simple bind though which is clear text passwords.
>  
>  
> See
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-
> us/ldap/ldap/ldap_bind_s.asp and look in the remarks section. 
>  
>    joe
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis 
> Ouellet
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 11:43 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply joe, however one last questions remains:
>  
> Is the process of binding to the GC (in the case I'm connecting to 
> port 3268) different from say: A user authentication to AD when 
> logging on to a workstation? Does it use the same kerberos ticket 
> system?
>  
> Thanks!!
> Francis
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: 11 mars 2005 11:28
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> 
> You have two major functions in this area
>  
> 1. Connect. This is where you specify the server, port, and network 
> protocol you want to use. If you select connectionless you are using 
> UDP, otherwise you are using TCP. For most folks, UDP is useless, so 
> you may not want to play with it too much. You can also specify an SSL

> connection. Until you work out the basics, don't worry about it.
>  
> 2. Bind. This is where you specify the ID you want to connect to AD 
> with and the authentication mechanism you want to use.
> The calls are all going against the server/port that you specified in 
> 1. Note that you can't authenticate a UDP connection (just one reason 
> why you don't generally want to play with UDP).
>  
> Some apps combine that all together in the background so you don't see

> it such as my adfind command line tool. You simply specify what you 
> want and off it goes and handles the binding and connecting and 
> everything else for you.
>  
>   joe
>  
>  
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis 
> Ouellet
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 11:03 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ActiveDir] Binding to ldap process..
> 
> 
> Hi,
>  
>  
> I'm trying to understand the process of binding to an ldap server. I'm

> toying with ldp.exe and I'd like to know a little bit more about the 
> different bind options...
>  
> If you decide to connect to port 3268 to query the GC and then decide 
> to bind do you bind on port 389 or continue to authenticate to the GC?

> You see, I'm just a wee bit confused as to what happens in the 
> background :)
>  
> Thanks,
> Francis Ouellet
>  
>  
> 
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

Reply via email to