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. Martin >> On May 18, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Martin Kosek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 05/15/2015 01:33 PM, Brian Topping wrote: >>> In the (apparently) first message to the list in 2014, >>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-users/2014-January/msg00000.html >>> <https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-users/2014-January/msg00000.html> >>> 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. >> >> https://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Permissions_V2 >> >> 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 >>> referenced >>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/FreeIPA_Guide/disabling-anon-binds.html >>> >>> <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/FreeIPA_Guide/disabling-anon-binds.html> >>> 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): >> >> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4653 >> >> 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 (209.132.178.99) >> 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 >> to >> offer Kerberos-over-HTTP functionality by default: >> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4801 >> >> Even now, it can be manually configured. This is what GNOME used: >> https://www.dragonsreach.it/2014/10/07/the-gnome-infrastructure-is-now-powered-by-freeipa/ >> >> 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. >> >> Martin > -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users Go to http://freeipa.org for more info on the project
