On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:23:30AM -0700, Henry B. Hotz wrote: > >>>>I'm not entirely sure what the intended semantics of > >>>>krb_match_realm > >>>>are, but if you're trying to match the GSSAPI-authenticated name > >>>>against > >>>>"value_of(PGUSER)@value_of(krb_match_realm)" then you need to > >>>>construct > >>>>that string, gss_import_name() it, and then gss_compare_name() the > >>>>imported name with the authenticated name that GSSAPI already > >>>>gave you. > >>>>I know the API overhead of doing that is a PITA, but that's > >>>>what's going > >>>>to work. > >>> > >>>Why? > >> > >>Because if we're using the GSSAPI then we need to use the properties > >>defined by the GSSAPI, and not depend on observed behavior of > >>specific > >>implementations of specific mechanisms. Otherwise things will be > >>non-portable or unreliable in ways that may be non-obvious. > >> > >>In particular gss_display_name() produces a character string intended > >>for display to a human being. It is *NOT* intended for access > >>control. > >>As another example, Heimdal gss_display_name() puts '\' escapes in > >>front > >>of special characters in the username. I don't think it's worth > >>writing > >>special case code for that either. > > > >Ok. I can see that point. However, if you have those characters in > >your > >username, you may have other problems as well :-) > > Yeah. Not many people put spaces inside usernames.
I think we can easily get away with not covering that case. > >Is there some other way to actually get the username from gss? I mean, > >if we *didn't* get it from the startup packet, how would we ever be > >able > >to determine what user logged in? > > gss_export_name(), but what it returns is supposed to be an opaque > binary blob. > > It's guaranteed to produce a unique, canonicalized name based on the > specific mechanism in use. It is suitable for memcmp(). The > exported name will re-import. Section 3.10 of rfc 2744 describes all > this, and appears to be clearer than the Sun document I pointed you > at. Certainly it's more concise. YMMV. Hmm. But it doesn't serve our purpose. > memcmp() on exported names will only be true if everyone uses the > same gss mechanism. (OK, the only one we care about is kerberos.) > In contrast it's possible that gss_compare_name() would say that > "uid=smith,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com" is the same as > [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, memcmp()ing two separate strings (userid + match realm) with an opaque binary blob certainly won't help us at all. > >>The standard defines two ways to do comparisons for access > >>control. We > >>should use one of them. Anything else is going to be more work > >>and less > >>reliable. > > > >What's the other way then? > > > >Last I checked there was no way to do case insensitive matching on > >gss_compare_name() but I could be on the wrong docs? Finding any > >kind of > >consistent docs for this stuff isn't exactly easy. > >Because we *must* have the ability to do case insensitive matching, or > >it *will* break on Windows. > > No gss_compare_name() is case sensitive. I think the way to do it is > to know what case Microsoft is going to use and pre-map everything to > that case (before you do a gss_import_name()). I *think* Microsoft > will use upper case for the service name so we will need to change > from "postgres" to "POSTGRES" as the default name in service > principals. I've seen places where they may be using lower case > realm names (which makes *NO* sense to me). No. Microsoft will send you whatever case the user put into the login box when he logged into windows. It's case-*preserving*, but case-insensitive. However, AD itself requires uppercase service name, but that's a different thing. > Absent an environment where I can actually look at all these things, > my only point of reference is mod_auth_kerb, and the issues reported > with it. I know an upper case "HTTP" is needed to interoperate with > windows clients. An upper case realm name seems to be OK, as is a > lower case server name in the second component. The actual usernames > seem to be lower case, but that's not the concern of the > mod_auth_kerb developers since the deployer just needs to put in > whatever matches. The usernames depend on what the client puts in. It's generally a big problem because a lot of krb-aware applications can't deal with it. > I assume in AD you can't create both "smith" and "Smith", but can you > create the latter at all? If you do, does AD remember the case for > display purposes? Here at JPL usernames are lower case, and I don't > think we allow anything special but hyphens in them, so I'm not > likely to see a lot of the possible corner cases. You can and it remembers. But it has no effect on what is sent ni the kerberos packets - what's sent there is what the user typed in. Yes, that sucks bad, but that's how it is. > I think you can upper case the service name, lower case the server > name, upper case the realm name, and lower case the user name. If > you can create "Smith" in AD and the user gets authenticated as > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" at the protocol level then that won't work though. Which is how it is :-( >From what I can tell, the least bad way to do it is still the patch that sits in the queue now (pending changes based on Stephens comments, but those are a differnt thing) //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend