[Fedora-directory-users] Proposed new features for 1.3

Fri Apr 10 17:20:55 UTC 2009

David M. Partridge
Tangible Software Inc.
Sr. Security Engineer
2010 Corporate Ridge
Suite 620
McLean, Virginia 22102
Office     800-913-9901 x 3001
Mobile   571-286-9628
Fax        703-288-1226
dpartridge at tangiblesoftware.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Megginson [mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:40 AM
> To: General discussion list for the Fedora Directory server project.
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-directory-users] Proposed new features for 1.3
> 
> David Partridge wrote:
> > Use case example for certmap.conf for end user:
> >
> > Customer has desire to share Enterprise Directory information across
WAN
> > for contact information sharing, but has requirement for strong
> > authentication using PKI.  PKI trust is a PKI Mesh utilizing cross
> > certification.  Users information in Directory Server One (DS1) are
> > associated with users issued certificates from PKI One (PKI1).
Users
> > information in Directory Server Two (DS2) are associated with users
> > issued certificates from PKI Two (PKI2).
> >
> > DS1 has no awareness or cross population of entries with DS2, but
PKI1
> > is cross certified with PKI2 and trusted by both populations.  Users
> > associated with PKI1 have a business requirement to strongly
> > authenticate with DS2 to locate and collaborate with population of
users
> > in DS2, but have no entry in DS2 and vice versa.  By removing
current
> > capability to strongly authenticate based on TLS configuration but
have
> > NO DN in DS you are removing capability to use SASL External in a
cross
> > certified PKI environment.  User of the product will be forced to
use
> > SASL GSSAPI that causes other security issues or requirements to
setup
> > all of these Kerberos trust and ticketing handling that should not
be
> > required, difficult to sustain and place external dependencies on
usage
> > of the DS product in a federated environment as described.
> >
> > If directory is utilized as something OTHER than repository for
people
> > similar challenges will present themselves when certificates are
issued
> > for devices, roles, and groups.  Examples include but are not
limited to
> > VOIP device address book capabilities such as CISCO VOIP phones or
call
> > managers, Potentially for extending security capability in hosts
that
> > have host based certificates that may require use of the directory
for
> > backend business processes were Certificate trust and regular
expression
> > checks of DN utilized for the TLS session may be sufficient to
utilize
> > for ACI binding rules.
> >
> 
> So you want to allow a user from DS1 to authenticate to DS2, without
> having a user entry in DS2.  Then use access control, bind resource
> limits, groups, roles, CoS, etc. without having a real user entry.  I
> think that would be useful for auth in general, not just cert based
> auth.  It comes up often in SASL/GSSAPI auth (wanting to use Kerberos
> auth without having to have a user entry), and is necessary to support
> the types of devices you mention.

[David Partridge] 
DS1 and DS2 for clarity are only containers of information for users to
consume. A user may have data in neither, one or both DS, but has PKI
credentials that are trusted by neither, one or both DS.  If trusted the
user should be authenticated via TLS using mutual authentication using
PKI. If not trusted user is turned away by TLS mutual authentication.

Authentication and access control are two separate and distinct
processes.  

If user is not authenticated why should I allow them to get to the point
of exposing internal directory resources to evaluate access control,
bind resource limits, groups, roles, CoS, etc.  Believe I had this
conversation with Bob Lord long time ago when we discovered a previous
security issue.

If user is authenticated capabilities of DN mapping with sophisticated
access control, bind resource limits, groups, roles, CoS, etc. continue
to be valuable for providing different privileges and capabilities. But
the ability should not be absolute to requiring a DN in the directory
NOR would I want to try to build rules based on every PKI end user DN
that may have a chain of trust that is acceptable based on adding to NSS
Truststore.  There will be some cases that the fact that they
authenticated regardless of SASL mechanism should be able to provide
'SOME' access.

> 
> One of the things that cert based auth does now is to retrieve the
> userCertificate from the user's entry and compare it against the cert
> presented in the auth request.  But that (verifyCert) can be turned
off
> now.  Would you want the ability to compare the cert presented for
auth
> against the known cert for that identity?

[David Partridge] Depends - For our use cases identity certificates [
digital signature, nonrepudiation key usage] are NEVER published or
stored outside of PKI CA infrastructure (will let the Dogtag team
explain reasons).  Therefore the certificate used for SSL will NEVER be
a match to the certificate attribute in the directory which is merely
one or more email encryption certificates [key encipherment key usage]
that corresponds to mail attribute in directory.

If directory was for PKI CA infrastructure matching the certificate
binary value may be useful, but unnecessary if implementation of PKI
done correctly.  Matching binary contradicts why the PKI exists in the
first place.  In most cases PKI exists so you do not need prior
knowledge of the end user of the certificate to know that the
individual/system met identity vetting requirements and is the only
individual/system that possessed private key to make it do what it does.

> > David M. Partridge
> > Tangible Software Inc.
> > dpartridge at tangiblesoftware.com
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rich Megginson [mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:47 PM
> >> To: General discussion list for the Fedora Directory server
project.
> >> Subject: Re: [Fedora-directory-users] Proposed new features for 1.3
> >>
> >> David Partridge wrote:
> >>
> >>> Would like to see additional monitoring flexibility for snmp -
when
> >>>
> >> configuring multiple ds instances with same port on single
multihomed
> >>
> > host
> >
> >> monitoring information is agregated by port in the monitoring not
by
> >> instance and port.
> >>
> >>> Please provide more information on deprecation of certmap.conf.
> >>>
> >> We would instead use the SASL mapping functionality to map the
> >>
> > subjectDN
> >
> >> in the cert to a DN that the DS knows about.  The SASL mapping code
is
> >> much more powerful and flexible than the certmap.conf code.
> >> *http://tinyurl.com/cqe42v
> >> *
> >>
> >>> Need flexibility to not rely on dn in cert mapping to anything in
> >>>
> >> directory and rely on successful tls mutual authentication and
> >>
> > truststore
> >
> >> configuration.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I understand - do you want the ability to do cert auth
> >> without having to have a real entry in the directory server that
> >> corresponds to the subjectDN?
> >>
> >>> Script to provide index analysis based on data in  the directory
to
> >>>
> >> provide the following info:
> >>
> >>> Search performance efficiency of index and index type based on
> >>>
> > return
> >
> >> limits, and scanidslistlimit.
> >>
> >>> Compressed ldif(gzip) capability for export, import, and
> >>>
> > initialization
> >
> >> usage.
> >>
> >> Ok - Thanks - this is all good stuff.
> >>
> >>> Dave Partridge
> >>> Sent from my Windows Mobile(r) phone.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:23 PM
> >>> To: General discussion list for the Fedora Directory server
project.
> >>>
> >> <fedora-directory-users at redhat.com>
> >>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Fedora-directory-users] Proposed new features for
1.3
> >>>
> >>> Andrey Ivanov wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I continue with my list
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Thanks - I've added many of these to the list - questions below.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * the server should be able to return the members of dynamic
groups
> >>>> "on the fly" as if it were real members, the membership attribute
> >>>> should be configurable - uniqueMember, member or another
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I put this on the Future list:
> >>> Dynamic group expansion
> >>>
> >>>     * Define a dynamic group, and have the member/uniqueMember
> >>>
> > attribute
> >
> >>>       of this group automatically be populated by the server
> >>>     * clients can then just search for member like with a regular
> >>>
> > static
> >
> >>>       posix group
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * support of other virtual attributes generated "on the fly"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Can you explain this a little more?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * pam passthrough plug-in should take into account at least the
> >>>> account activation/desactivation (bug *470684*
> >>>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470684> ). There is
a
> >>>> comment about some additional useful features it in th README
file
> >>>>
> > of
> >
> >>>> this plug-in :
> >>>> We need to worry about account expiration or lockout e.g. the
> >>>>
> > user's
> >
> >>>> credentials are valid but the user has been locked out of his/her
> >>>> account, or the password has expired, or something like that.
Some
> >>>>
> > of
> >
> >>>> this can be handled by LDAP e.g. returning password policy
control
> >>>> values when the password has expired.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> * a way to synchronise the configuration of indexes (each time we
> >>>>
> > add
> >
> >>>> an index on one of the replicated servers we need to make it
> >>>>
> > manually
> >
> >>>> on all the others) and some other parameters in "cn=config"
between
> >>>> the replicated servers  (a little like the "configuration"
> >>>>
> > partition
> >
> >>>> in active directory), the schema changes are already replicated
> >>>>
> > which
> >
> >>>> is very good
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I'm calling this feature "Configuration replication" - I think it
> >>>
> > could
> >
> >>> be useful for other sorts of configuration.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * enforced attribute syntax validation
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Already on the list - Syntax validation checking
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * re-verify and validate conformance of the syntaxes, case
> >>>>
> > sensitivity
> >
> >>>> and their matching rules to RFC
> >>>> (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-directory-users/2008-
> >>>>
> >> July/msg00041.html)
> >>
> >>>>
> >>> Already on the list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * unix socket autobind still does not seem to work (ldapi) -
> >>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-directory-users/2009-
> >>>>
> >> February/msg00112.html.
> >>
> >>>> It could be very useful for various maintenance scripts running
on
> >>>>
> > the
> >
> >>>> server.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> We tested this with 1.2.0 and it seems to work.  You tested a
build
> >>>
> > from
> >
> >>> source?  Did you use --enable-autobind with configure?  Did you
> >>>
> > restart
> >
> >>> the server after configuring your autobind and sasl mapping?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * verification of the server from the viewpoint of memory leaks.
Th
> >>>> size of the memory used by the server grows with time (normally
we
> >>>> don't restart the sevrr during several months, so i can follow
the
> >>>>
> >> stats)
> >>
> >>> We regularly run the server test suite with valgrind enabled.  I'm
> >>>
> > not
> >
> >>> aware of any per connection or per operation leaks.  What exactly
> >>>
> > are
> >
> >>> you seeing?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * logconv.pl - very useful script, add some more options/
> >>>>
> > adjustments
> >
> >>>> (for example, a switch to hide unindexed searches in verbose
mode).
> >>>>
> > We
> >
> >>>> use it as logwatch.
> >>>>
> >>>> * a perl script to show the replication statistics (there is one
> >>>>
> > for
> >
> >>>> the we page generation statistics, something more basic,
text-only
> >>>> would be very welcome) in text mode - to receiveth reports by
mail
> >>>> once per day like logwatch for example
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> What sort of information are you looking for?  ldapsearch can
> >>>
> > provide
> >
> >>> most of the useful information.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * regular expressions in ACIs (i know, it is very difficult to
do,
> >>>>
> > so
> >
> >>>> maybe somewhere in the timescale of the version 10.0 ? :)) - for
> >>>> example, allow a user to add or modify a value just in case the
new
> >>>> value mathes the regex. Or the group or dn of the user matches
the
> >>>> regex...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> You can do some of that currently with targetattrfilters - see
> >>> *http://tinyurl.com/3yo88r
> >>>
> >>> We added support in 1.2.0 to allow you to specify group membership
> >>>
> > with
> >
> >>> LDAP search specifications, which does allow some wildcarding, so
> >>>
> > that
> >
> >>> might help too.
> >>> *
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * simplify the creation of new syntaxes and their validation/
> >>>> enforcement (version 11.0? :))
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Can you elaborate?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * virtual views allowing to map not only the trees but also the
> >>>> attributes ('cn' instead of 'uid' in a subtree, for example)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Can you elaborate?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * enable regex in certmap.conf for mapping the CNs of the
> >>>>
> > certificates
> >
> >>>> during the certificate authentification of users
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> This is on the list as
> >>> Get rid of certmap.conf - use SASL mapping (cert auth is really
just
> >>> SASL/EXTERNAL)
> >>> The sasl mapping code uses regular expressions
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Other than that i just want to emphasize the great job you are
> >>>>
> > doing
> >
> >>>> adding new features and especially the fantastic reactivity in
> >>>>
> > fixing
> >
> >>>> some critical server bugs (usually it takes only one or two days
to
> >>>> have the necessary diff in bugzilla!)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you and please continue the development of this directory
> >>>>
> > server!
> >
> >>> And thank you for your suggestions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>         Thanks - I've added these notes to
> >>>>
http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Roadmap#Version_1.3
> >>>>
> >>>>         Anyone else?  C'mon - surely you have an opinion about a
> >>>>
> > new
> >
> >>>>         feature.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>             Thanks for all your hard work on this!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> -
> >>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> >>>> Fedora-directory-users at redhat.com
> >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This e-mail and any attachment is intended for the above name
> >>>
> >> recipient(s) only and may contain confidential or privileged
> >>
> > information.
> >
> >> If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and
> >>
> > delete
> >
> >> the message.  Failure to maintain the confidentiality of this
e-mail
> >>
> > and
> >
> >> any attachment may subject you to penalties under applicable law.
> >>
> >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any
> >>>
> > attachments,
> >
> >> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> >> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected
by
> >>
> > law.
> >
> >> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> >>
> > prohibited. If
> >
> >> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply
> >>
> > e-
> >
> >> mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> >>
> >>> --
> >>> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> >>> Fedora-directory-users at redhat.com
> >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This e-mail and any attachment is intended for the above name
> recipient(s) only and may contain confidential or privileged
information.
> If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and
delete
> the message.  Failure to maintain the confidentiality of this e-mail
and
> any attachment may subject you to penalties under applicable law.
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any
attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by
law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
e-
> mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> > Fedora-directory-users at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
> >

This e-mail and any attachment is intended for the above name recipient(s) only and may contain confidential or privileged information.  If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete the message.  Failure to maintain the confidentiality of this e-mail and any attachment may subject you to penalties under applicable law.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.