Adding freeipa-users list back, to keep others in the loop.
On 05/18/2015 12:32 PM, Brian Topping wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to write that, Martin. It's good to have a
> reference to build from.
> Result of "ida-client-install" outside the firewall with port 636 accessible:
Ah, I mostly just use 636 as a convenience port to show the supported cryptos,
389 is really the port we should be using by default.
Of course, 389 port + STARTTLS environment turned on, to make sure passwords do
not go in clean over the wire.
>> Please make sure the following ports are opened in the firewall settings:
>> TCP: 80, 88, 389
>> UDP: 88 (at least one of TCP/UDP ports 88 has to be open)
>> Also note that following ports are necessary for ipa-client working properly
>> after enrollment:
>> TCP: 464
>> UDP: 464, 123 (if NTP enabled)
> No mention of 636, confirmed by tcpdump that it's not trying. Also no option
> on command line to specify 636.
> Opening up 389 means that some misconfigured client could expose passwords.
> It's possible to remove null ciphers, but then there's really no reason not
> to use 636.
> Seems like ipa-client-install should try 636 by default, then fall back to
> 389 in it's various forms, no?
I think the general direction here was the opposite. To work on the port 389 as
the common denominator, offering both password-less traffic and encrypted
traffic. I am not sure if there were other reasons too, I would let Rob or
Ludwig reply here if they know.
>> On May 18, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Martin Kosek <mko...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 05/15/2015 01:33 PM, Brian Topping wrote:
>>> In the (apparently) first message to the list in 2014,
>>> addressed questions about securing IPA and I don't see much other talk
>>> about it. Now that 4.x is prevalent, I wanted to bring it up again.
>> This is the default by design. However, note that in FreeIPA 4.0+ you can
>> change that default (permission-mod) and let users or some of the user
>> attributes be only shown for authenticated users.
>> So, from my POV, this is not a flaw.
>>> I'd like my installation to be allow hardened machines (i.e. in the cloud
>>> with encrypted filesystems) to be a part of the domain. I believe this
>>> means that I need to expose Kerberos and LDAP to the world, since the
>>> machines could live anywhere. I don't believe I need to worry about KRB5,
>>> but I am concerned about 389-DS since it seems somewhat difficult to force
>>> TLS (https://blog.routedlogic.net/?p=119
>>> <https://blog.routedlogic.net/?p=119>) and maybe that's a bad idea under
>>> IPA for reasons I thought I'd ask here about. Last year's thread also
>>> and I thought I would check to see if that's still necessary under 4.x.
>> 389-DS and TLS should be also fixed, since FreeIPA 4.1 (RHEL/CentOS 7.1):
>> This is an nmap test against the FreeIPA public demo (4.1.x):
>> $ nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 636 ipa.demo1.freeipa.org
>> Starting Nmap 6.47 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2015-05-18 11:08 CEST
>> Nmap scan report for ipa.demo1.freeipa.org (126.96.36.199)
>> Host is up (0.19s latency).
>> PORT STATE SERVICE
>> 636/tcp open ldapssl
>> | ssl-enum-ciphers:
>> | TLSv1.2:
>> | ciphers:
>> | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - strong
>> | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - strong
>> | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 - strong
>> | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 - strong
>> | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - strong
>> | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 - strong
>> | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 - strong
>> | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA - strong
>> | compressors:
>> | NULL
>> |_ least strength: strong
>> Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.19 seconds
>>> Setting up the firewall to allow cloud networks in is always an option, but
>>> if I can get a secure IPA setup going, it would also allow road warriors to
>>> kinit and use their credentials for configured intranet sites without
>>> having to turn on the VPN (which can really slow things down from remote
>>> parts of the globe).
>> BTW, if you are concerned about exposed Kerberos traffic, FreeIPA 4.2 plans
>> offer Kerberos-over-HTTP functionality by default:
>> Even now, it can be manually configured. This is what GNOME used:
>> So, if I am reading my notes correctly, there should be no blockers in using
>> FreeIPA in your environment. If yes, please let me know.
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list:
Go to http://freeipa.org for more info on the project