Thanks Dan,

2015-10-22 20:54 GMT+02:00 Dan White <[email protected]>:

> On 10/22/15 17:59 +0200, Olivier wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> authentication over ldap doesn't work on one of my linux box. Trying to
>> query the ldap server from this machine with ldapsearch, I get this :
>>
>> $ ldapsearch -ZZZ -h ldap1.example:389  -D uid=olivier,dc=example,dc=fr -b
>> dc=example,dc=fr -W
>> Enter LDAP Password:
>> SASL/GSSAPI authentication started
>> ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s: Local error (-2)
>>    additional info: SASL(-1): generic failure: GSSAPI Error: Unspecified
>> GSS failure.  Minor code may provide more information (No credentials
>> cache
>> found)
>
> Without including a '-x' option on the command line, you are directing
> ldapsearch to perform a SASL authenticated bind. See the ldapsearch
> manpage.


I use SASL in certain circumstances (aka: EXTERNAL), but not GSSAPI and
find strange that this particular machine (I mean the client) even tries it.

Do you know why ldapsearch tries to authenticate using GSSAPI ?
>>
>
> In this case, ldapsearch deferred the underlying authentication exchange
> to libsasl2, which has determined that GSSAPI is the most appropriate SASL
> mechanism to use, likely because the ldap server is offering it. You can
> use '-Y' to specify a preferred sasl mechanism, if that is your intention.


Is there any way to configure the server not to serve GSSAPI mechanism ? I
have not fount any parameter that could deal with that on the server side.


> I don'use such a mechanism (nor kerberos) and I don't remember that I
>> configured any such a thing.
>>
>> Any idea to desactivate the attempt to use GSSAPI to authenticate ?
>>
>
> You can remove the GSSAPI libsasl2 shared library from your system, but
> that would simply mask the problem.


Mmm... Thanks for this idea, but again, this is GSSAPI that I don't want to
use, not SASL.

Is there any documentation that describes the dialog between the client and
the server before they agree an a particular mechanism ?


--
Olivier







>
> --
> Dan White
>

Reply via email to