On 06/21/2018 04:28 PM, Max DiOrio wrote:
This isn’t quite what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about multiple policies in a single OU. This OU contains 10
servers.
Case 1)
We have one policy for Technology User access, which defines that our
Technology Users are able to log in through terminal services, so that they can
SSH into the server.
We have a second policy for Domain Admins, which allows all domain admins
rights to Log on Locally and Log on through Terminal Services, so that we can
access via console and SSH.
With both polices linked to the OU, our domain admins are being rejected. If I
remove the Domain Admins policy and move the authentication into a single group
policy, it works fine. This tells me that SSSD isn’t checking multiple
policies, but only the first one it searches.
Even if there is multiple GPOs for one OU, there is still
deterministic order how the GPOs are being applied.
The order can be checked in the Group Policy Management
console, by clicking on the OU/Domain where you want
to check what GPOs are applied and then clicking
on the "Group Policy Inheritance" tab.
The problem with your two GPOs is that they both specify
"Allow log on through terminal services" so the one that
is applied later overrides this rule (as if the previous
one was not specified at all).
So if you want to split the GPOs on one OU level it is better
to split them based on what policy they specify
(for example one for "Log on locally" and another one for
"Log on through terminal services"). But IMO it is better
to have just one GPO that specifies all access control rules
(all allow/deny log on types). IMO it is just easier to
manage that way.
Case 2)
We have an OU for infrastructure servers. This OU has about a dozen systems in
it.
We have the domain admin access policy as defined in Case 1 that should apply
to all servers in this OU.
We have a second policy for serverA that has a security group set to Log on as
a service, since that will be used to define a group allowed to access an
Apache web site based access using PAM.
We have a third policy for ServerB that has a few users defined for Log on
Through Terminal Services as these are remote access that need SSH access.
For the second and third policies, we use security filtering and specify the
specific server it needs to apply to since it shouldn’t apply to ALL servers in
the OU.
I think you are hitting known limitation of SSSD. We do not support
hosts in the security filter. See this issue and BZ:
https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/3443
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462348
Unfortunately parts of the conversation in tha BZ is private and the
description may be confusing, but the point is that SSSD ignores
host entries in the security filter and (for now) only supports
users and groups.
Once this is done, the domain admins can no longer log in, however the policy
for ServerA web access work perfectly as does the policy for ServerB.
I would expect BOTH policies to apply to the server in question.
It appears based on this that I would need a separate OU for each server where
“custom” policies need to be applied and roll up all the GPO objects required
into a single policy.
On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Mote, Todd <[email protected]> wrote:
Ah, I never had occasion to find that little gem out. But I agree better to
just say copy it. Easier to debug as you say and less complex for folks to
understand.
All of the settings fall down from every policy, for conflicts, it's replace
rather than merge from the last policy applied. That's not too bad an
explanation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michal Židek <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 6:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: Multiple GPOs and order processing issue
On 06/20/2018 04:16 PM, Mote, Todd wrote:
In my testing, I found that it does not appear that Access control GPOs are cumulative.
So, the GPO on the OU closest to the computer object will win. So I put a general GPO at
the top of the structure and have just instructed down-OU admins that when they write
GPOs for their OUs they have to include what the top level one has in it, in addition to
what they need to add, to ensure global access continues for the "uber admins"
and they can add access to service accounts and other service level users. It's a drag,
but it seems to work.
This is true. And it is also very confusing for many admins.
But you actually do not need to copy the entire GPO from the above OU/Domain level. Only rules that are
specified again in the GPOs (for example adding a user to "Allow log on locally" rule, you need to
copy the whole "Allow log on locally" list from the GPO from above level and then add a user to the
list, but if the "Deny log on locally"
does not change in the new GPO than you do not need to copy it from the above GPO). So
the GPOs are "sort of"
cumulative.
But I agree that copying te whole GPO and expanding/changing it for the lower
level OUs is better, because it is much easier to debug.
-----Original Message-----
From: Max DiOrio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 9:08 AM
To: End-user discussions about the System Security Services Daemon
<[email protected]>
Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: Multiple GPOs and order processing issue
Haven’t heard back from anyone on this issue, I know it’s been a while, but
we’re still seeing it, and it’s getting to be much more of an issue as we start
migrating production servers over to the AD domain.
How can we use multiple group policies to define security rights? Or do I need
to do a single group policy per server, which seems awful.
On May 29, 2018, at 12:18 PM, Max DiOrio <[email protected]> wrote:
Attached are the logs. It seems that even after removing the GPO’s, it is
still being blocked from logging in.
From secure.
May 29 12:17:24 la-1potpap01 sshd[8292]: pam_sss(sshd:auth):
authentication success; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser=
rhost=10.85.144.87 user=a-mdiorio May 29 12:17:25 la-1potpap01
sshd[8292]: pam_sss(sshd:account): Access denied for user a-mdiorio:
4 (System error) May 29 12:17:25 la-1potpap01 sshd[8292]: Failed
password for a-mdiorio from 10.85.144.87 port 60267 ssh2 May 29
12:17:25 la-1potpap01 sshd[8292]: fatal: Access denied for user
a-mdiorio by PAM account configuration [preauth]
<Archive.zip>
On May 28, 2018, at 6:49 AM, Michal Židek <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi!
From your description the setup should work. Can you send full
(sanitized) logs? Mostly the domain and gpo_child logs are interesting here,
but for simplicity you can send all logs:
- stop sssd
- remove cached files in:
rm -r /var/lib/sss/gpo_cache/*
rm -r /var/lib/sss/db/*
- set debug_level in domain section in /etc/sssd/sssd.conf to 10
- reproduce issue
- send logs from /var/log/sssd/
Additional questions:
- if you remove the single computer policy, does the "generic"
policy apply as expected to the affected computer in question?
Michal
On 05/25/2018 08:58 PM, Max DiOrio wrote:
Hi!
So it seems that I’m having an issue with GPO processing. I have an OU
(Servers/Infrastructure) that contains a few servers. In this OU, I have a few
GPO’s applied.
Once is “generic” that should applied to every server in this OU - which allows
Remote Interactive Login and Logon Locally to Domain Admins.
I also have a GPO that applies to a specific server in this out that grants
access to a service account to log on to terminal services and log on as a
service. For this GPO, I have a security filter to the specific computer
object it is supposed to apply to - and I think this is the root of my issue.
The GPOs are listed
1) Infrastructure servers Access Control (that should apply to them all)
2) Single Computer policy for service account When looking
at the sssd_domain logs, I can see that it’s processing both GPO’s, but only
adding the account from policy 2 to the ad_gpo_access_check, meaning domain
admins can’t log in to either server, only the service account can to both of
them.
So we have multiple issues:
1) It’s not combining the GPO access policies, but only taking the
last one found
2) It’s not abiding by the Security Filtering on the GPO So in my
case - how would I go about making this work? Would I need a separate GPO for
each server I want to apply individual rights to and explicitly include the
domain admins group in it, then using delegation allow the single computer read
and deny read of every other computer?
Seems like this also means you can’t do GPO inheritance if it only takes the
last found GPO and ignores the settings configured in previous GPO’s it checked.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
Max
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected] To
unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
r ahosted.org/message/JJFCF6EEUAHUYUVPEUUPWSJUEQP65R6B/
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected] To
unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
a hosted.org/message/JXSLOZTYNKPD3Z3RT5BP5EQVEAD45ZRS/
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected] To
unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
osted.org/message/DBUXCJ74BEF6FLLWJ5GXVD74GJ6KH3PJ/
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected] To
unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
osted.org/message/R2T56NNWO7ZMALDMFM72S7P3UQMCVW4Z/
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe
send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/AVXE73LJEWALT3PD34V4ZYA6EC4UQS3W/
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/A5VZWKLFULADQP7QXR4HX7BD4UCCAFYJ/
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/4SQIDTROQCJJEPUNFQSF6CIN2W3YOYYG/
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VVCMM7LRID5CLBHE72I6XIPZVTJTRPYZ/
