Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Saturday, August 05, 2017 3:05 PM -0400 David Hawes <dha...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> With ITS #8568 [1], I notice that the first SASL EXTERNAL (using TLS
>> client auth) bind on a connection succeeds, but subsequent SASL
>> EXTERNAL binds on the same connection fail with:
>> slapd[31088]: conn=1009 op=3 RESULT tag=97 err=48 text=SASL(-15):
>> mechanism too weak for this user: mech EXTERNAL is too weak
> Please file an ITS for this, thanks.  I would think the expected behavior for 
> SASL/EXTERNAL is the SASL SSF matches the TLS SSF, given it's a TLS encrypted
> connection.

This whole SSF numbering stuff is - ummh, let's say - interesting. ;-)

If a client connects via TLS with strong cipher suite (full-featured PFS, 
yeah!) but uses
a 512-bit RSA key in its client certificate with SASL/EXTERNAL should this be 
counted to
have a strong SSF?

So better do not use SSF values in a fine-grained security policy.

Ciao, Michael.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to