On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 08:02 +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> Dne 28.5.2015 v 16:48 Nathaniel McCallum napsal(a):
> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 16:34 +0200, Christian Heimes wrote:
> > > Jan has suggested to ipaConfigString=kdcProxyEnabled in
> > > cn=KDC,cn=$FQDN,cn=masters,cn=ipa,cn=etc instead of
> > > ipaConfigString=enabledService in
> > > cn=KDCPROXY,cn=$FQDN,cn=masters,cn=ipa,cn=etc. It makes sense to 
> > > me.
> > > After all MS-KKDCP is just another transport for the KDC. [4]
> > 
> > There may be a security concern here if we aren't careful. I think 
> > I'm
> > in favor of KDCPROXY since it is a different application.
> 
> What concern would that be? It has been already established that KDC 
> proxy is not a different application, but rather a subcomponent of 
> KDC 
> in the other thread.

Accidental exposure of something else in
cn=KDC,cn=$FQDN,cn=masters,cn=ipa,cn=etc. My fear comes from the fact
that in order to make this work we have to expose stuff in
cn=KDC,cn=$FQDN,cn=masters,cn=ipa,cn=etc to apache. These kind of cross
-domain security allowances always raises red flags for me.

Don't cross the streams... it would be bad. :)

Nathaniel

-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to