Matt:

To elaborate on Fabrice's statements jut a bit:


The RADIUS portion of PF can be thought of as just the mechanism PF uses to 
talk to the controllers / APs / Switches.


All the logic of who and what devices get what role is defined in PF and those 
roles should correspond with some type of established network based method of 
controlling access.


In our instance we use VLans and internal firewalls.


When a user authenticates the role they are assigned in PF triggers the RADIUS 
server to respond to the AP with a VLan assignment for that host, that vlan has 
established rules concerning where hosts on the subnet can and cannot go on the 
network which are enforced via our internal firewalls.


There are other ways you can do it but this is how we do it and my gut feeling 
is it is very similar to how must people deploy PF.


PF will not return an ACCESS DENY except under special circumstances, most of 
the time you don't want access deny anyway.  Typically when you want to deny a 
user access to network resources, you want to isolate them.


Isolation provides the ability to push the user onto a network subnet where you 
can better control their access and allow for self-remediation, if you want.


There are corner cases where outright rejecting the user is what you want, and 
I am just a stranger on the Internet who knows nothing about your specific 
requirements ... so you can take my comments with a proverbial grain of salt, 
YMMV, etc.


Hope that helps, please feel free to post back to the list  with any problems 
you have.  If I can help and I have time I'll respond.


Jake Sallee
Godfather of Bandwidth
System Engineer
University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
WWW.UMHB.EDU

900 College St.
Belton, Texas
76513

Fone: 254-295-4658
Phax: 254-295-4221
________________________________
From: Fabrice Durand via PacketFence-users 
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 10:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Fabrice Durand
Subject: Re: [PacketFence-users] PacketFence FreeRADIUS only configuration


Hello Matt,

with mac auth packetfence return by default Accept but the vlan_id/Acl/Role is 
different based on the status of the device.

Let say if a device is unreg then you probably want to return Accept with an 
acl name that will deny the access to the network and when you set the device 
reg with a role then you probably want to Accept too by with an acl name that 
will allow the device on the network.

On the opposite when you do 802.1x then if the username and password is correct 
then PacketFence will return Accept but if you use a wrong username and 
password the return will be Deny.

Also to debug when freeradius run, go in /usr/local/pf and do raddebug -f 
var/run/radius.sock -t 3000

Regards
Fabrice

Le 2017-10-12 à 10:47, Matt Fogleman via PacketFence-users a écrit :
I'm really new to both FreeRADIUS and PacketFence, what I am trying to do is 
just get a simple Mac auth configuration up for our wireless network.  I 
installed PacketFence with the new RADIUS only option on RHEL7, I added our 
wireless controller in the Configuration > Switches section and gave it the 
RADIUS key, and also configured the same thing on our wireless controller.

It seems to be accepting connections, but it is just accepting everything.  I 
added the Mac address of a laptop in the "Nodes" section, and saw in Auditing 
that it sent back an Accept message.  But then I deleted the Mac address out of 
"Nodes" and tried again and it sent the Accept message again.  So I tried a 
different device that I hadn't added before, and it got accepted as well.

Is there somewhere I have to configure the conditions for it to send back a 
Reject message?

I'm also getting an error when trying to start debugging.
Refusing to start with libssl version OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013 
0x1000105f (1.0.1e release) (in range 1.0.1 release - 1.0.1t rele)
Has anyone else encountered this?

--
Matt Fogleman
Network Technician
Unionville-Chadds Ford School District
(o)  (610) 347-0970



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, 
Slashdot.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://Slashdot.org&c=E,1,ZuIlSdKDzcG9MeyeaZU0g_sTRetVx7ox44Zillzgd_QYh06SXQux6EOVD7OUQ6ne2oMulBKKIHthE_VKdDiXvKOPE4e-qSJHNIOSM4iGDs3T18cV561JX3QJ&typo=1>!
 
http://sdm.link/slashdot<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://sdm.link/slashdot&c=E,1,LZg9XqvjBmhirgrEMOjDbHOW3DxyqvZDn9XS0Mt5VdZtZAqXzoN2JFvHu4zD-eMlSG7_JzIxqcFkpjna14uexyLCsAdzZJ6MHLuC3mY,&typo=1>



_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users



--
Fabrice Durand
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ::  +1.514.447.4918 (x135) ::  
www.inverse.ca<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.inverse.ca&c=E,1,uYjcnRPETfowTOn17pZlwJbrD2E2fo5JpIGoi200YDy_2nDgQIAZQx2U80UfMFQDcDONkhzydqUdWCMCLpOoqLJfq9iPH3ZTMxGWeS1dK5U,&typo=1>
Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo 
(http://www.sogo.nu<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.sogo.nu&c=E,1,Gm7t-itAvsZQsxUp8W9RQOiJaqglSV_Dj0jqDiIJWt5LLeIwWrQ-H9o63PhiPS2TJgf5OwKYLXSpsa1Uvddwby2kC-ffgwy5DjcqdYqAlOH6LyTeZqY,&typo=1>)
 and PacketFence 
(http://packetfence.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://packetfence.org&c=E,1,pe1X9i4Y8D9gUO2QsxvdXkhQ0P2nVnDm-njBcQdr0gJcsKML5MYeCC3RRCfo-Mxku3gHyo1-89TAYX-xhnfl8Gj_gaXoYvXIrJ_MweZpOuDC&typo=1>)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users

Reply via email to