1 Jun 2004 03:37
RE: Heimdal/OpenLDAP/Samba howto and bugreport
Kurt D. Zeilenga <Kurt <at> OpenLDAP.Org>
2004-06-01 01:37:07 GMT
2004-06-01 01:37:07 GMT
At 12:22 PM 5/31/2004, Howard Chu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-heimdal-discuss <at> sics.se >> [mailto:owner-heimdal-discuss <at> sics.se]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga > >> Regarding commenting out sasl-secprops minssf=128, it might >> be better to instead lower the minssf to 70. The base SSF of >> ldapi:// is currently 71. We figured that use of ldapi:// was better >> than weak encryption (<65) but not as good as stronger >> encryption (>95), hence the 71. The ldapi:// SSF should really >> be a configurable option. I'll add that to our TODO list. > >No, that won't work. The minssf here is used to select eligible SASL >mechanisms to offer to the client, Right. When ldapi:// is used, slapd(8) sets the transport SSF to 71 so that mechanisms which can met the minssf are available. >and SASL/EXTERNAL always has an SSF of >zero as far as the SASL library is concerned. I was under the impression it was only offered when the minssf was satisfied by the transport as SASL/EXTERNAL doesn't itself improve the ssf. Will have to read through Cyrus SASL server.c again to figure out exactly... I just saw this comment: * IF mech strength + external strength < min ssf THEN FAIL I thought it was (and, IMO, should be): * If max(mech strength, external strength) < min ssf THEN FAIL.(Continue reading)
I have more changes for kadmin/sl that I should take
time to commit, so I can have a look at this too.
/Johan
RSS Feed