Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Data Bases > Pgsql Hackers > Re: Proposed Pa...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 7 of 8 Topic 9265 of 11009
Post > Topic >>

Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS sup****t for servers on

by bruce@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) Jun 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Added to TODO:

* Improve LDAP authentication configuration options

  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg01745.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

steve layland wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Thank you all for your comments.  I was unaware the ldaps: scheme was
> not supposed to be used for LDAP+TLS encryption, but it makes sense now
> that you mention it.
> 
> There's a nice discussion about how the folks working on mod_ldap for
> Apache worked this out way back in 2005:
> 
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200501.mbox/%3c6.2.0.14.2.20050104132551.054a1eb0@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
> 
> Anyway, I think we've distilled the issue down to how to best enable TLS
> for ldap:// connections.
> 
> By my reckoning, that means we can have:
> 
> 	1) per-hba.conf entry configuration where the configuration can
> 	be:
> 
> 	    a) of the ldap URL extension form mentioned by David
> 	    (!StartTLS).
> 
> 	    b) key=value type of param string as suggested by Magnus
> 
> 	    c) a specific URI scheme like ldap+tls:// like Tom
> 	    suggested.
> 
> 	    d) a new authentication type ldaptls
> 
> 	2) per-postgres server configuration which can be:
> 	
> 	    a) an old LDAPTLS environment variable ? needs research
> 
> 	    b) a server-wide GUC variable (along with TLSCERT
> 	    specifications?) as in the current patch
> 
> I'm open to other suggestions.
> 
> One other thing to keep in mind is how best to map database roles to
> ldap Distinguished Name (dn) entries?
> 
> In other words, we need to take the user jimmy in
> 
> 	psql -U jimmy
> 
> and translate into an ldap authentication request for the distinguished
> name that is entirely dependent on the site and ldap impl, example:
> 
> 	uid=jimmy,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
> 
> I've racked my brain thinking of ways that this can fit cleanly in
> hba.conf, but I haven't found anything I _really_ like (current patch 
> and proposal 3 below are prob my favorites.) Any other
> ideas/comments/suggestions?
> 
> # Current Functionality for reference - no tls control
> host	dbname	all	127.0.0.0/32	ldap
"ldap://ldap.example.com[:****t]/ignored;uid=;ou=people,dc=example,dc=com"
> 
> # Current Functionality in patch (w/ server wide TLS control in GUC var)
> # GUC var causes all ldap entries to use same authentication. can be
> # applied to service lookup as well
> host	dbname	all	127.0.0.0/32	ldap
"ldap://ldap.example.com[:****t]/ou=people,dc=example,dc=com;uid="
> 
> # proposal 1 - RFC 2255 URI kind of yucky; scope, attributes, filter
> # not actually used in simple authentication
> host	dbname	all	127.0.0.0/32	ldap
"ldap://ldap.example.com[:****t]/uid=%u,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com???!StartTLS"
> 
> # proposal 1b - still RFC 2255 compliant, but semantically weird.  no
> # filter is actually used in simple authentication
> host	dbname	all	127.0.0.0/32	ldap
"ldap://ldap.example.com[:****t]/ou=people,dc=example,dc=com?one??(uid=%u)!StartTLS"
> 
> # proposal 2 - psuedo-URI scheme; hacky but easy
> host	dbname	all	127.0.0.0/32	ldap
"ldap+tls://ldap.example.com[:****t]/ou=people,dc=example,dc=com;uid=;"
> 
> # proposal 3 - mod hba parsing, add new ldaptls auth type; reasonably
> # easy and least invasive; 
> host	dbname	all	127.0.0.0/32	ldaptls
"ldap://ldap.example.com[:****t]/ou=people,dc=example,dc=com;uid=;"
> 
> # proposal 4 - mod hba parsing
> host	dbname	all	127.0.0.0/32	ldap
"ldap://ldap.example.com[:****t]/ou=people,dc=example,dc=com;uid=;"
StartTLS
> 
> # proposal 5 - Magnum's key = value like idea (i'm guessing here,
> # Magnum.  If I misinterpret, please explain)
> host	dbname	all	127.0.0.0/32	ldap
"ldap://ldap.example.com[:****t]/ou=people,dc=example,dc=com;prefix=uid=;start_tls=1"
> 
> I have some radical ideas as well involving completely ripping out the
> pg_hba.conf file but I'll leave that for another, more appropriate day.
> :)
> 
> Thanks again for the feedback, and sorry for the verbosity.
> 
> -Steve (#postgresql rockpunk)
-- End of PGP section, PGP failed!

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
 




 8 Posts in Topic:
Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port 636 w/o TLS
steve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-25 21:02:40 
Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port 636 w/o T
direvus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-04-26 11:36:48 
Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port 636 w/o T
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-04 13:29:28 
Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port
pgadmin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-05 13:40:38 
Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port
david_list@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-05-05 07:36:13 
Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port 636 w/o T
steve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-05 23:54:03 
Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on
bruce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-06-25 22:53:24 
Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port
magnus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-05 13:51:25 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Fri Dec 5 8:50:52 CST 2008.