On 04/16/2014 03:41 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 15:08 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 04/15/2014 04:55 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Hello,
At Devconf, we decided what most of the default read permissions should look
like, but we did not get to user.
Here is a draft of 4 read permissions. Please comment.
Basic info (anonymous):
[top]
objectclass
[person]
cn, sn, description
[organizationalPerson]
title
[inetOrgPerson]
uid
displayName, givenName, initials
manager
[inetUser]
memberOf
<== We originally specifically hidden memberOf attribute from anonymous users.
I think we should continue hiding it.
OK
[ipaObject]
ipaUniqueID
[ipaSshUser]
ipaSshPubKey
[ipaUserAuthTypeClass]
ipaUserAuthType
[posixAccount]
gecos, gidNumber, homeDirectory, loginShell, uidNumber
Details (all authenticated):
[person]
seeAlso, telephoneNumber
[organizationalPerson]
fax, l, ou, st, postalCode, street
destinationIndicator, internationalISDNNumber, physicalDeliveryOfficeName,
postalAddress, postOfficeBox, preferredDeliveryMethod,
registeredAddress, teletexTerminalIdentifier, telexNumber, x121Address
[inetOrgPerson]
carLicense, departmentNumber, employeeNumber, employeeType,
preferredLanguage, mail, mobile, pager
audio, businessCategory, homePhone, homePostalAddress, jpegPhoto,
labeledURI, o, photo, roomNumber, secretary, userCertificate,
userPKCS12, userSMIMECertificate, x500UniqueIdentifier
[inetUser]
inetUserHttpURL, inetUserStatus
[ipaUser]
userClass
I would personally not divide the attributes as basic and detailed. IMO it is
our artificial distinction and may vary between deployments. Why would we for
example show inetUserHttpURL to authenticated only and ipaSshPublicKey to
everyone?
I thought it would be helpful to have a distinction between what needs
anonymous read, and what's optional.
I can move individual attributes, of course.
My proposal would be to have a permission "Read User Information" for all
attributes above.
This way a paranoid admin would need to go through the attributes one by
one to decide what needs to stay anonymous and what doesn't. Having two
permissions makes this easier to tune.
But of course I can merge them.
Kerberos/login-related (all authenticated):
[krbPrincipalAux]
krbPrincipalName, krbCanonicalName, krbPrincipalAliases,
krbPrincipalExpiration, krbPasswordExpiration, krbLastPwdChange
[+]
nsAccountLock
Ok. So permission "Read User Kerberos Attributes"?
OK
Kerberos-related (user admins only):
[krbPrincipalAux]
krbLastSuccessfulAuth, krbLastFailedAuth, krbLastPwdChange
So permission "Read User Kerberos Login Attributes"?
OK
I think this group should also have:
krbLastAdminUnlock
krbLoginFailedCount
+1
No read permission:
[person]
userPassword
ok
[krbPrincipalAux]
krbPrincipalKey, krbExtraData, krbPwdHistory
ok
krbLastAdminUnlock,
Move this one.
krbLoginFailedCount
Move this one.
krbPrincipalType
Simo? I know we do not user this attribute, but wouldn't it fit in "Read User
Kerberos Attributes" permission?
Yes, we do not use it yet, but we may want to in the future.
krbPwdPolicyReference
This could contain DN to user's password policy attribute. IMO somebody should
have a right to read it. Simo, should all authenticated users be able to read
it?
Probably not. In another thread we are trying hard to conceal password
policy objects, showing this to everybody would thwart that effort as
you'd be able to find out the objects by querying all the ones that
reference them. Admin and Help Desk people would need access to it
though as they need to be able to inspect and change this attribute.
krbTicketPolicyReference, krbUPEnabled
I would treat those the same as krbPwdPolicyReference.
Yeah, makes sense.
[krbTicketPolicyAux]
krbMaxRenewableAge, krbMaxTicketLife, krbTicketFlags
Ok. This will be readable by people with "System: Read User Kerberos Ticket
Policy" permission.
[mepOriginEntry]
mepManagedEntry
This is used to bind user to it's private group. We use it for example in
group-detach command to distinguish between managed and non-managed groups.
We may want to show it to all authenticated users.
Do we need to ?
It is only interesting for internal/administrative operations.
Simo.
--
Petr³
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
