On 02/25/2014 04:17 PM, Rich Megginson
wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:14 AM, thierry
bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:46 PM, Rich
Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:42 AM, thierry
bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:34 PM, Rich
Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:24 AM,
thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/24/2014 10:47 PM,
Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 09:00 AM,
thierry bordaz wrote:
Hello,
IPA team filled this ticket https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47553.
It requires an ACI improvement so that during
a MODDN a given user is only allowed to move
an entry from one specified part of the DIT to
an other specified part of the DIT. This
without the need to grant the ADD permission.
Here is the design of what could be
implemented to support this need http://port389.org/wiki/Access_control_on_trees_specified_in_MODDN_operation
regards
thierry
Since this not related to any Red Hat internal or
customer information, we should move this discussion
to the 389-devel list.
Hi Thierry,
Your design looks good. A minor question. The doc
does not mention about "deny". For instance, in your
example DIT, can I allow "moddn_to" and "moddn_from"
on the top "dc=example,dc=com" and deny them on
"cn=tests". Then, I can move an entry between
cn=accounts and staging, but not to/from cn=tests? Or
"deny" is not supposed to use there?
Thanks,
--noriko
Hi Noriko,
Thanks for having looked at the document. You are right,
I missed to document how 'DENY' aci would work.
I updated the design http://port389.org/wiki/Access_control_on_trees_specified_in_MODDN_operation#ACI_allow.2Fdeny_rights
to indicate how a DENY rights could be used.
By default if there is no ACI granting 'allow', the
operation is rejected. So in that case, without ACI
applicable on 'cn=tests', MODDN to/from 'cn=tests' will
not be authorized.
Adding a DENY to target 'cn=tests' would also work but I
think it is not required.
In the example I added, the 'ALLOW' right is granted to
a tree (cn=accounts,SUFFIX) except to a subtree of it
(cn=except,cn=accounts,SUFFIX)
So in order to do a MODDN operation, you need both the
moddn_from aci and moddn_to aci?
For example:
dn: dc=example,dc=com
aci: (target="ldap:///cn=staging,dc=example,dc=com")(version
3.0; acl "MODDN from"; allow (moddn_from))
userdn="ldap:///uid=admin_accounts,dc=example,dc=com"
;)
If I only have this aci, will it allow anything? That is,
if I don't have a (moddn_to) aci somewhere, will this
(moddn_from) aci allow me to move anything?
Yes it will allow you to do a MODDN if you are granted the
'ADD' right on the new superior entry.
I think this double ACI can be an issue as freeipa was
hoping to use a single ACI. But I have not found a solution
to grant move (to/from) in a single aci syntax.
I think it is very important to specify both the source and
the destination of a MODDN operation. I don't think this will
be possible in all cases without having 2 target DNs in a
single ACI statement.
My concern is that if we have something like :
aci: target_rule (version 3.0; acl "MODDN control"; allow
(moddn_to, moddn_from)
bind_rule;)
and 'target_rule' defines two DNs, then moddn_to/from are
granted for both DNs. so in our case, the user would be allowed
to move an entry staging->accounts but also
account->staging.
Right. It is necessary to be able to specify moddn_from="DN1"
modrn_to="DN2"
Ok yes it would work.
Now I am unsure of the benefit of having a single aci with that new
'target_rule' syntax compare to two aci with the current syntax. I
can imagine a performance gain in terms of aci scan and evaluation
but wonder if there is an other benefit.
I sent the design pointer to freeipa-devel as well, sure I will get
some comments on that :-)
regards
thierry
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
|