|
From: Mark Reynolds <mreynolds@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:47 PM To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Michael Starling <mlstarling31@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [389-users] anonymous binds
On 10/19/21 1:43 PM, Michael Starling wrote:
So you have a "resource limit" setup for "anonymous binds" which sets the sizelimit to 2000? If that is the case then your client will hit this "2000" entry sizelimit - if it does an anonymous bind to the server. If it provides credentials then it will
not be restricted by the configured anonymous resource limits.
I'm not that familiar with sssd or nscld enough to say, but I'm pretty sure they can be configured to use a specific bind dn and password.
In our server you can create users that have aci's that grant them specific access as well. Anonymous access can also be disabled in our server. To recap what an anonymous bind is, it is when a client connects to the server but does not provide any credentials. The behavior of such connections/operations will depend on what aci's and resource limits you have configured. I don't think this is what you are asking about though, so can you please clarify your questions? Thanks, Mark
Hi Mark.
Essentially, I'm asking anon binds have a search limit of 2000 objects and you have 3000 user objects is it possible that you will have problems with user's logging into to Linux clients?
In this scenario user A uses ssh to login to a Linux client using sssd as an authentication mechanism. Is sssd we are not specifying a bind dn to handle the lookups to 389.
When user A initiates the connection to the client, sssd does the anon lookup but hits the 2000 limit. If there are 3000 user entries, is it possible that user A is unable to make a connection because this user potentially is object 2001 and thus the information necessary to be returned by 389 to the client fails?
Is it a better practice with 389 to create a bind dn with no search limit to avoid the scenario above? I understand I can bump the anon bind limits but I think eventually I may just convince them to turn anon binds off completely. For now, i just want to understand the effects of the current implementation.
-- Directory Server Development Team |
_______________________________________________ 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
