Yes, I can see that Windows SASL binds might not be universally available ;-)
Thinking about it, another problem with the SASL binds is that presumably the ADAM instance must be running on a server that is a member of the authenticating AD domain (or at least one that has a trust back to the authenticating domain). This would limit it's usefulness in extranet scenarios because of the ports that would have to be opened between ADAM and AD (assuming they are on opposite sides of a firewall). Tony ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Joe Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:12:34 -0500 The problem is that this happens a lot. There are simply tons of applications out there that don't use Windows SASL binds. It would be nice if it wasn't this way, but that's the reality of LDAP auth, especially with vendors that don't use Microsoft's LDAP libraries. I've got at least 6 of these at work right now. The other thing that is hard to deal with is scenarios where you have a mix of ADAM and AD principals. Since it isn't easy to tell apart ADAM from AD principals except for possibly by naming convention, so it can be hard to know whether an app should do a simple or SASL bind for a given user in this use case. So, the advice from MS is good, but not easy to follow. Also, the feature is there to be used. Another thing is that to use features like Fast Concurrent Bind, you have to do simple bind. It isn't supported with SASL. BTW, does FCB work with bind proxies? I've never tried. Joe K. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] ADAM bind Redirection with a NULL password > My impression from reading the on-line documentation is that the use of > ADAM Proxy Objects and bind redirection is frowned upon anyway. > > "Proxy users are designed for special circumstances and should only be > used as a last resort, when Windows principals cannot be used directly." > > and > > "ADAM bind redirection should be used only in special cases where an > application can perform a simple LDAP bind to ADAM but the application > still needs to associate the user with a security principal in Active > Directory." > > From > http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/7cfc8997-bab2-4770-aff2-be424fd03cda1033.mspx?mfr=true > > Is there no way for the application to use the recommended alternative, > i.e. where ADAM receives a SASL bind request and forwards the request to > Active Directory? > > Tony > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "Jef Kazimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:17:39 -0500 > > Eric, > > The problem stems from lack of ability to modify the application to > correct > the behavior. If I had the ability to force this, I would simply require > null/blank not to be passed to the ADAM server from the application. > > I've been at odds about the DCR myself, for all the reasons you mentioned. > Yet, without the ability to control the applications, the only thing I can > control is the directory itself. Without a mechanism to disable such > behavior, I am without recourse unfortunately. > > So far, I've been able to avoid this problem, because the 2 apps I had > this > happen with, the developer was able to modify the authentication dialog. > I > have had other apps with other issuers, where modification was not > possible. > These did not suffer this poor design issue, but I wonder if I will get > such > an app eventually. I suppose I am just trying to solve a problem, I have > not been forced to solve by this method, which means it cane wait. > > I could go into how it would be nice to have enterprise application > minimum > standards, and application owners involve infrastructure staff BEFORE an > app > is purchased, instead of after when it doesn't work, but I won't :) > > Jef > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Fleischman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:48 PM > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] ADAM bind Redirection with a NULL password > > One solution would be to ACL all objects such that SELF can read them, > then have the app, after it has authenticated as the user, try and read > something on the user itself. This way you know you are in fact that > user (or someone else that has read access, which presumably won't work > as anonymous). > > In terms of your DCR...could such a bit be put in? I guess. But DCRs > that are filed with the intentional intent of going again an RFC > typically have a rough time getting through even with a very strong > business impact. And you have a workaround already in the app, and > another solution I mentioned above. Just setting expectations... > > ~Eric > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jef Kazimer > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 5:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ActiveDir] ADAM bind Redirection with a NULL password > > Since there has been talk of LDAP "Authentication" as of late, I figured > I'd > post my issue of poorly developed applications allowing a null password > to > an ADAM instance using Bind Redirection. > > http://jeftek.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F2042DC08607EF2!710.entry > > I'd be curious if a bit flip to shut down this possibility could be put > in > control of the directory Admin, instead of relying on the developers. > > Thanks, > > Jef Kazimer > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.activedir.org > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at mail.activedir.org List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
