Not sure but this is what resolved it.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Rob Crittenden <rcrit...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Rajnesh Kumar Siwal wrote:
>>
>> Looking into the sssd logs, I came to know there there was one more
>> rule allowing access:-
>> (Mon Feb  4 14:13:01 2013) [sssd[be[chargepoint.dmz]]]
>> [hbac_get_category] (5): Category is set to 'all'.
>> (Mon Feb  4 14:13:01 2013) [sssd[be[chargepoint.dmz]]]
>> [ipa_hbac_evaluate_rules] (3): Access granted by HBAC rule [allow_all]
>> (Mon Feb  4 14:13:01 2013) [sssd[be[chargepoint.dmz]]]
>> [be_pam_handler_callback] (4): Backend returned: (0, 0, <NULL>)
>> [Success]
>>
>> I disabled that allow_all rule, now it is fine.
>
>
> I don't know why that would make any difference. HBAC != sudo.
>
> rob
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Rajnesh Kumar Siwal
>> <rajnesh.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is the outuput of ldapsearch :-
>>> dn: cn=Admins,ou=sudoers,dc=example,dc=com
>>> objectClass: sudoRole
>>> sudoUser: %ctsadmin
>>> sudoHost: ALL
>>> sudoCommand: ALL
>>> sudoRunAsUser: ALL
>>> cn: Admins
>>>
>>> The rule still says that the group ctsadmin is allowed (Which should
>>> not happen after I remove the ctsadmin group from sudo access)
>>> On the IPA Web Interface there is not sudo role attached to the  User
>>> "rsiwal" (Neither Direct nor Indirect).
>>> May be there is some bug.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rajnesh Kumar Siwal
>>> <rajnesh.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I have just created a setup for sudo on the IPA Server 2.2.
>>>> I modified nsswitch.conf to use ldap.
>>>> ldap.conf has been modified to fetch sudo users from the IPA Server.
>>>>
>>>> Now, th euser in group "admin" can do sudo.
>>>>        1. rsiwal being a user of group sudo can run all commands as sudo
>>>> (FINE)
>>>>        2. If I disable the rule "Admins" (that I admin group access to
>>>> sudo), the sudo still works for the user rsiwal (Which should not work
>>>> logically).
>>>>        3. Removed the group "Admins" (including rsiwal) from the Sudo
>>>> rule. The rule is still allowing user rsiwal to run "sudo su -". (It
>>>> should Fail)
>>>>
>>>> Is there some kind of caching being at the Server / client end ?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Rajnesh Kumar Siwal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Rajnesh Kumar Siwal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Regards,
Rajnesh Kumar Siwal

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-users mailing list
Freeipa-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users

Reply via email to