On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Howard Chu <[email protected]> wrote:

> Matthew Kemp wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:36 AM, mailing lists <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello,
>>
>>     I am testing the chain overlay from a read-only slave (consumer) slapd
>>     server to a read-write master (provider), but what I am seeing is an
>>     anonymous bind from the consumer to the provider instead of the
>>     authorization identity configurated in the chain directive.
>>
>>
>> We're also seeing the same behavior and reported a similar issue last
>> month to
>> this list:
>> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-technical/201703/msg00047.html
>>
>> I'm hopeful we can track down this issue as it's causing us some issues
>> that
>> we'll need to resolve eventually.
>>
>
> Only ProxyAuth will work, now.
>
> As documented, the chain overlay only intercepts responses to operations,
> and only acts when it sees a referral in the response. In order for
> rebind-as-user to work, the overlay would need to intercept Bind requests
> and cache the credentials, but it never intercepts Bind requests, therefore
> it has nothing to rebind with. It *could* intercept referrals from Bind
> responses, and grab the user's credentials at that point. But back in 2004
> we turned those off, and slapd now will never return a referral to a Bind
> request. (commit 100facedf3c9ec241121a5e3ad7aa059a7c57bc2 in git.)
> Probably we should remove references to rebind-as-user from the
> slapo-chain(5) manpage now, since that commit basically killed this feature.
>
>
> --
>   -- Howard Chu
>   CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
>   Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
>   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/
>

Howard, thanks for the response.

That is unfortunate to hear, as I spent an not insignificant amount of time
trying to make the configuration work as the documentation implied it
might, especially given how long that documentation has apparently not been
accurate. I agree with your suggestion to remove those references.

I am slightly concerned that ProxyAuth places a lot of power into the
credentials used by consumer, unless I entirely misunderstand the process.
I was hoping that by enforcing the user to bind as themselves in order to
change their passwords, I wouldn't have to worry about users with root
access in staging environments where we plan to have read-only syncrepl
consumers potentially being able to get ProxyAuth access to other users
account information.

Do you have any advice for a situation such as ours?

-- 
Matt Kemp
Production Engineer
Braintree

Reply via email to