Hi Lorenzo,

I forgot to CC.

The reason this command fails in this case, is that you probably enabled
command authorization for levels 0 and/or 1 in addition to level 15. You can
either remove it (no authorization command 0/1 *name  *in line config mode +
no aaa authorization commmand 0/1 x) or add necessary commands to the ACS
section. In the first case this user will have access to all level 0 and 1
commands + only the "clear line" from level 15. In the second case only the
specified commands will work.

Regards,
--
Piotr Kaluzny
CCIE #25665 (Security), CCSP, CCNP
Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/>


On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Tating, Lorenzo C. Jr. <
[email protected]> wrote:

>  Hi Piotr,
>
> Thank you for the alternative. I created a usergroup and assigned level-15
> to it. Here is the config on ACS:
>
> Unmatched commands: deny
> Command list: clear
> Permit unmatched args (unchecked): permit line
>
> The user can clear the line, but is now not able to do even a simple level
> 1 command like "show ver".
>
> R3#show privilege
> Command authorization failed.
>
> R3#clear line 0
> [confirm]
>  [OK]
> R3#
> R3#show ver
> Command authorization failed.
>
> R3#
> R3#
>
> PS: Do I need to include in the CC list the studylist email or keep this
> unicast?
>
> Lorenzo C. Tating, Jr.
> Technology Support Specialist
> Service Support Group 1
> Technology Services Division
>
> FUJITSU PHILIPPINES INC.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Piotr Kaluzny [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2010 6:11 PM
> *To:* Tating, Lorenzo C. Jr.
> *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_Security] Shell Command Authorization
> inconsistency in IOS
>
> Lorenzo,
>
> This is a 15-level command which means it will not be accessible on level
> 14 unless you move it there with "privilege exec level" command, as you
> described. What you configure under the ACS Authorization section applies
> only to the privilege levels pointed for authorization on the routers, but
> it does not change the level the command itself is accessible on. The
> alternative to this is to create two 15-level users, one with access to all
> commands and the other who could only access the "clear line command" (and
> anything else you think fit). Then you would not have to move the command
> with the "privilege" statement.
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Piotr Kaluzny
> CCIE #25665 (Security), CCSP, CCNP
> Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Tating, Lorenzo C. Jr. <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>  I am trying to do Shell Command Authorization on my routers using
>> Tacacs.
>>
>> I have one user that i place under privilege level 14. I want a level 15
>> command (clear line) to be used by that user. Using the "privilege exec
>> level 14 clear line" works, but I need to implement it on ACS to save me
>> time from having to enter the command over and over again to many routers.
>> But I noticed that once my user logged under privilege level 14 (Tacacs
>> Setting, Privilege Level = 14), the Command Authorization. I cannot bring
>> the "clear line" command to that level. I tried using this on ASA and it
>> works, it just seems the router wont allow bringing a level 15 command down
>> to level 14, without manually configuring "privilege exec level 14 clear
>> line"
>>
>> ACS config:
>> Per Group Command Authorization
>> Unmatched Cisco IOS commands
>> (deny)
>>
>> [check] Command:
>> clear
>>
>> Arguments:
>> (none)
>>
>> Unlisted arguments:
>> permit
>>
>>
>> Any help will be appreciated.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Lorenz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Piotr Kaluzny
CCIE #25665 (Security), CCSP, CCNP
Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to