[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Slapd Security based on port

To: "openldap-technical@openldap.org" <openldap-technical@openldap.org>
Subject: Re: Slapd Security based on port
From: Chris Jackson <cjackson@pasco.k12.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:58:59 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Content-language: en-US
In-reply-to: <58B9B70CD0826B45A4FF282268F885DF14EA0A@SN1PRD0202MB051.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <58B9B70CD0826B45A4FF282268F885DF14EA0A@SN1PRD0202MB051.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Thread-index: AcvJ+vgtJRpbyKmSQvSf75xMo8okjQAGmNqA
Thread-topic: Slapd Security based on port

I want to apologize in advance for the forthcoming duplicated messages. My original question wasnt very clear and neither of them were getting to the list and I didnt know why. Maybe a 24hr lock out for new posters.

Chris Jackson

On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Chris Jackson wrote:

Is it possible to prevent anonymous and unauthenticated binds to ldaps:// 636 but allow them on ldap:// 389?

I want to allow staff to query my ldaps:// outside of my network while requiring them to login to do so but allow anyone to bind (anonymous, unauthenticated, or authenticated) internally on ldaps//: 389.

I know:
Anonymous bind can be disabled by "disallow bind_anon" and Unauthenticated bind mechanism is disabled by default. But if I use "disallow bind_anon it stops in on both ports. I want to stop it just on ldaps://.

Chris Jackson

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Slapd Security based on port
  - From: Jonathan Clarke <jonathan@phillipoux.net>

References:
- Slapd Security based on port
  - From: Chris Jackson <cjackson@pasco.k12.fl.us>

Prev by Date: question about cn=config replication and security.
Next by Date: Re: ACL peername
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread