On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 12:47 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 05:59 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
> > On 06/16/2014 03:04 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> > Thanks for your precise feedback and sorry for my late answer.
> > So if I try to consolidate my understandings, the workflow would be:
> > 1. Staging (container: cn=staged
> > users,cn=accounts,cn=provisioning,SUFFIX)
> > * ipa stageuser-add <login>
> > It creates a stage entry with
> > uidNumber: -1
> > gidNumber: -1
> > ipaUniqueID: autogenerate
> > description: __no_upg__
> > manager: checks that the DN is an active user
> > nsAccountLock: True
> I was thinking about the nsAccountLock part again. Should we really force
> provisioning systems to set it to True for staged users? Should we even
> manipulate it in stageduser plugin?
No, thinking hard about it I think nsAccountLock should be completely
ignored in the staged area. It is an operational attribute that is
responsibility of IPA admins, provisioning systems have nothing to do
with it. If they do not want a user to be available they simply do not
provision it. If they do then it is on the admin to decide if/when to
unstage the user and make it available.
> The original reason why I proposed it in
> is to prevent LDAP BINDs on such user or Kerberos authentication on such user.
> Wouldn't it be better to simply just update KDC backend plugin and LDAP BIND
> pre-bind callback to prevent authentication to users in
The staged user should have it's userPassword anmd KrbKerberosKey
removed, so no binding should be possible.
> This would allow us to be sure that nobody can bind/authenticate to these
> without having to manipulate nsAccountLock attribute.
We should just make sure no credentials are set ?
Is there any valid reson for the provisioning system to be allowed to
set userPassword ? (It can't set KrbKerberosKey anyway)
Alternatively/optionally just set a CoS that enforces nsAccountLock to
be set on all staged entries without having to explicitly set it ?
> The only downside is that this would not be effective in older FreeIPA
> versions, but AFAIR, we specified that if User Life Cycle is enabled, all
> server should have at least 4.1 - otherwise for example deleted users would be
> put to the special container or old servers would not have the appropriate DS
> plugins updates.
Yeah I do not see an issue with older servers, esp if we do not allow
credentials on the entry anyway.
Freeipa-devel mailing list