Hi there,
> On 22 Apr 2021, at 03:52, Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> OS Version: CentOS 8
> 389-DS Version: 1.4.3.22 from EPEL
>
> I have a server set up with minssf=256 and have been surprised that either 389-DS, or openssl, does not appear to be doing what I would consider a logical TLS negotiation.
>
> I had thought that the system would start with the strongest cipher and then negotiate down to something that was acceptable.
>
> Instead, I'm finding that I have to nail up the ciphers to something that the 389-DS server both recognizes and is within the expected SSF.
>
> Is this expected behavior or do I have something configured incorrectly?
That's not what minssf does.
minssf says "during a bind operation, reject if the encryption strength used is less than 256 bits or equivalent".
The "bit strength" is arbitrary though, because it's a concept from sasl, and generally is very broken.
Remember, minssf does NOT do what you think though! Because bind is the *first* message on the wire, the series of operations is
client server
open plain text conn ->
<- accept connection
send bind on conn ->
<- reject due to minsff too weak.
So you have already leaked the password!
The only way to ensure this does not occur is to set "nsslapd-port: 0" which disables plaintext. Then you *only* use ldaps on port 636, which is guarantee encrypted from the start.
It is worth noting that the use of starttls over ldap, does *NOT* mitigate this issue, for a similar reason.
Caveat: If you are using kerberos/gssapi you can NOT disable plaintext ldap due to these protocols attempting to install their own encryption layers.
Hope that helps,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Trevor
>
> --
> Trevor Vaughan
> Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> (410) 541-6699 x788
>
> -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
> _______________________________________________
> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
—
Sincerely,
William Brown
Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server
SUSE Labs, Australia
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
