[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: forcing encryption for external server access while allowing unencrypted localhost connections
Hi,
"Richard L. Goerwitz III" <richard@Goerwitz.com> writes:
> Dieter Kluenter wrote:
>> Think about a rule something like
>> ,----[ rule design ]
>> | access to a subtree
>> | by an authenticated distinguished name with sasl_ssf=a
>> | and | if local socket with transport_ssf=x
>> | grant privilege
>> | if local network with transport_ssf=y
>> | grant privilege
>> | if public network with tls_ssf=z
>> | grant privilege
>> | else
>> | grant privilege
>> | stop
>> `----
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1) The issue is that Chris (and others, it turns out) could
> really use a way to assign SSFs to sessions over specific
> transports or connections to/from specific peers - and do
> it at startup time from the slapd.conf file
right, that is handled by a peer based rule set or by transport
controls, see man slapd.access(5)
> 2) The scenario you outline above solves this problem very
> indirectly; it would be better if there were a direct
> solution
Frankly, I don't get your point here.
> 3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your scenario we're still
> only talking about access to objects, not about operations
> like doing a bind; again, it's at best an indirect way of
> getting what Chris wants (and therefore a lot more complex
> than it needs to be, and I'm not entirely sure it will
> always block the initial bind; rather it will block the
> object access)
Here I have to correct you. the above scenario describes the rules
that apply to bind requests to one or more objects and the privileges
granted to manipulate this objects.
> This isn't a critique, by the way. I'm just pointing out that
> there's an unfulfilled need here that could be translated into
> a feature request of some kind.
If I understand you correctly, you are requesting a session that is
permanently open for a given period based on the initial bind request,
and subsequent requests are answered without any further privilege
controls but a sort of session granting ticket.
I don't think this would be a wise feature, but others may comment on
this.
-Dieter
--
Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung
http://www.dkluenter.de
GPG Key ID:8C183C8622115328