It seems in both cases, it's likely GPO link order on the OU. The Domain Admin policy is probably processed first and the other policy processed after it. You can see link order in GPMC if you click on the OU itself. It's a tab on the right side after that. Once processing gets to the last OU, there still has to be some order in which they apply, so the same "replace" not "merge" applies even here. If you move the links around I bet you can get your Domain Admins to log in and your Technology Users to not.
The policy for server A works because it's the only setting in the whole list of applied GPOs that is "Log on as a service", nothing to replace from any other policy on that one, and/or it's the last policy with that setting. The others is something else I've run into, though you've just reminded me of it. There is something about filtering and read access, and being able to apply GPs. Though I can't recall specifically. I'd have to spin up my test. I had thought that I could parse Windows firewall policy and apply it to IPtables, so I made a bunch of policies and tried to apply them just to a group of linux machines and used security filtering, it messed up other polices applying. I can't remember the specifics now though. Todd -----Original Message----- From: Max DiOrio <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 9:29 AM To: End-user discussions about the System Security Services Daemon <[email protected]> Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: Multiple GPOs and order processing issue 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. 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. 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] >>>>> o 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] >>>> r 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] >> h 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] >> h 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] > osted.org/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] > osted.org/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/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 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/5MVMH5LQSPQY5G4EWAMJRIFIWERSWCUT/
