------=_Part_39674_19690948.1226797622518
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Howard Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Breaking more software to use it with already broken software is, in a
> word, stupid. The standard practice for Kerberos requires you to have
> consistent forward and reverse DNS lookups. Sysadmins who are afraid to
> administer their software should either change their software or change
> their jobs.


Well .. I don't think my patch qualifies as breaking software to work with
broken software. The patch allows OpenLDAP applications to use alternative
ways for name canonicalization. At this moment this is not possible because
OpenLDAP is hard coded to canonicalize names with reverse DNS. This means I
cannot use the option that MIT Kerberos provides me to disable this (rdns =
no), as host names have already been reverse mapped by OpenLDAP before they
are passed into Kerberos.

I agree with you that reverse DNS should be correct. I just mentioned the
fact that many reverse DNS setups are broken as an example of why it can be
problematic. Another reason why canonicalization based on reverse DNS is
problematic is that it requires secure DNS to be secure. RFC4120 mentions
this:

  Implementations of Kerberos and protocols based on Kerberos MUST NOT
  use insecure DNS queries to canonicalize the hostname components of
  the service principal names (i.e., they MUST NOT use insecure DNS
  queries to map one name to another to determine the host part of the
  principal name with which one is to communicate).


The same RFC recommends in fact that applications do not canonicalize host
names at all:

  To maximize interoperability and security, applications SHOULD
provide security
  mechanisms with names that result from folding the user- entered name to
  lowercase without performing any other modifications or canonicalization.


My patch implements this behaviour, as an option.

Regards,
Geert

------=_Part_39674_19690948.1226797622518
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Howard Chu <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a 
href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" target="_blank">[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote 
class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 
0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

<br>
Breaking more software to use it with already broken software is, in a word, 
stupid. The standard practice for Kerberos requires you to have consistent 
forward and reverse DNS lookups. Sysadmins who are afraid to administer their 
software should either change their software or change their jobs.</blockquote>

<div><br>Well .. I don&#39;t think my patch qualifies as breaking software to 
work with broken software. The patch allows OpenLDAP applications to use 
alternative ways for name canonicalization. At this moment this is not possible 
because OpenLDAP is hard coded to canonicalize names with reverse DNS. This 
means I cannot use the option that MIT Kerberos provides me to disable this 
(rdns = no), as host names have already been reverse mapped by OpenLDAP before 
they are passed into Kerberos.<br>
<br>I agree with you that reverse DNS should be correct. I just mentioned the 
fact that many reverse DNS setups are broken as an example of why it can be 
problematic. Another reason why canonicalization based on reverse DNS is 
problematic is that it requires secure DNS to be secure. RFC4120 mentions 
this:<br>
<br><pre>  Implementations of Kerberos and protocols based on Kerberos MUST 
NOT<br>  use insecure DNS queries to canonicalize the hostname components 
of<br>  the service principal names (i.e., they MUST NOT use insecure DNS<br>
  queries to map one name to another to determine the host part of the<br>  
principal name with which one is to communicate). </pre><br>The same RFC 
recommends in fact that applications do not canonicalize host names at all:<br>
<br><pre>  To maximize interoperability and security, applications SHOULD 
provide security<br>  mechanisms with names that result from folding the user- 
entered name to<br>  lowercase without performing any other modifications or 
canonicalization.<br>
</pre><br>My patch implements this behaviour, as an 
option.<br><br>Regards,<br>Geert</div></div><br>

------=_Part_39674_19690948.1226797622518--


Reply via email to