Re: Strange problem with 389 console

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/02/2012 4:52 a.m., Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/06/2012 08:49 AM, Brian Bresina wrote:

Account activation and inactivation no longer seems to be working with my 389
console system. Unfortunately, there are several people with admin rights to
the ldap servers so I am unsure if someone might have messed the server up.
Currently, I can select inactivate for an account and I will get back a box
showing no errors. If I look at the account however, only the nsmangeddisalble
role and nsdisabled roles have been set. The nsaccountlock is never added to
the account. Also, if you right click on the account the activate is always
greyed out. I can manually add the nsaccountlock attribute and set it to true.
If I do this, the activate will appear when I right click on the account but
when I activate it only the roles will be removed, the nsaccountlock attribute
is still in place. Also I have noticed that there are two entries for some of
the attributes if I go to add them to an account, nsaccount lock is one of
them. Sadly, this is running in a production system, so I really need to have
a way for other SAs to lock out accounts for users that are no longer on the
system with having them added attributes for each account.
Anyone know what might be going on here? Thanks.


The way the console does account lockout (and the command line scripts such as
ns-inactivate.pl) is to use Roles and Class of Service to provide the
nsAccountLock attribute as a virtual attribute based on membership in the
"disabled" role. If you have manually set the nsAccountLock attribute at some
point it has turned into a "real" attribute and is no longer virtual, no longer
able to be managed by the console/script virtual attribute mechanism.
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

I suspect I have fallen victim to this situation.

If this is, in fact, what has occurred, is there any way to determine this?

And more importantly, is there a way to fix it?

Thanks,
David
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora User Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora QA]     [Fedora Triage]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Apps]     [Maemo Users]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Maemo Users]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux