:: Re: [DNG] Implementing directory se…
Pàgina inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Rick Moen
Data:  
A: dng
Assumpte: Re: [DNG] Implementing directory services/Kerberos
Redirecting back on-list.

Quoting wirelessduck@??? (wirelessduck@???):

> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 13:47, Rick Moen <rick@???> wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, it's been a _long_ time since I dealt with all of that badness,
> > so I'm probably forgetting a lot. This looks like a decent starting
> > point: https://wiki.debian.org/LDAP/Kerberos (except it has little to
> > say about AD integration).
>
> Thanks,


Yr. welcome, Tom.

> As there will be no Windows machines on this network, I don't have any
> requirement for AD integration. I probably should have clarified that
> further in the original email.


Ah, that does indeed simplify things.

> After a couple of months of head-banging and much googling of various
> docs, blogs, etc., I think I've finally managed to setup two
> replicating OpenLDAP servers talking to each other over TLS. :D
> LDIF is much less confusing now than it originally appeared to be,
> thanks to the excellent reference at http://zytrax.com/books/ldap/.
> The ldapscripts package is also working nicely in a simple way to add
> users and groups, although I'm not entirely sure why I would add
> machines to LDAP, unless I use those accounts for binding services?


Offhand, I don't think that'd be useful, no.

As I see it, part of what's both really useful and really annoying about
LDAP is that it was designed as an _extremely general_ implementation of
the X.500 directory management standard. So, it'll happily inhale the
kitchen sink of all possible information about everything in the
enterprise. Therefore, you often find yourself saying 'Yes, I could do
_this_ thing with it, too, but what would be the point? I have no
use-case for doing that.' The trick is to realise that the 'But _why_?'
reaction is normal and doesn't necessarily mean you missed something
significant.

> So my next question is, whats the recommended package to authenticate
> with LDAP and allow users to login to a desktop via their LDAP
> account? I've seen various options for PAM and NSS, but do I need to
> configure both or just one?


Tom, ten years ago and two major employers ago, I would have been glad
to send you example configurations from what I and the other senior SA
at $FIRM somewhat painfully figured out at that time. I'm really sorry,
but I just no longer have that anywhere.

I remember that you very much needed a PAM hook, because you're
introducing a new and preferred authentication method for shell login.
Offhand, I can't remember exactly _how_ NSS is part of this picture
(being about name services, e.g., names of hosts), but NSS and PAM
are pretty intertwined.

I remember that each machine needed a rather painfully worked out
ldap.conf file. I vaguely recall the need to have a self-signed X.509
certificate. Each machine needed to run the nscd and nslcd daemons:
The latter was a new, surprising requirement introduced as of CentOS
6.x (which was then new) -- though there is also an alternative called
sssd:
https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-c02791157

And there, I'm afraid, we've now exhausted what I can easily remember
after so many years of not needing to know it. I hope that helps.

> Should I be diving into the world of Kerberos and attempting to
> integrate that with my OpenLDAP servers, or is it fine to just
> authenticate via LDAP?


IIRC, $FIRM didn't end up having to develop Kerberos infrastructure just
to deploy user authentication against LDAP directory services back-ended
in OpenLDAP. It sufficed for our needs to rely on X.509 SSL certs as a
'shared secret'. However, you decide what the local degree of paranoia
requires.

Beyond user shell authentication against LDAP, one can also tweak other
applications where user authentication is relevant to do so as well,
e.g., Web-based services backed by Apache HTTPd (and thus entailing
plumbing added to the Apache conffiles). Bear that in mind if
relevant to your use-case.

-- 
Cheers,                                         I could maybe do one pilate.
Rick Moen                                       -- Matt Watson (@biorhythmist)
rick@???
McQ! (4x80)