|
On 02/25/2014 09:51 AM, thierry bordaz
wrote:
On 02/25/2014 05:36 PM, Rich
Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 09:28 AM, thierry
bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:53 PM, Ludwig
Krispenz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:45 PM, Rich
Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:28 AM,
thierry bordaz wrote:
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.
One problem with having two acis is referential integrity
- keeping the pairs in sync with other changes. Having to
keep track of two acis is much more than twice as
difficult as keeping track of a single aci.
I can appreciate that it will be very difficult to change
the aci syntax in such a way as to support two target
clauses in a single aci. And, it might not be sufficient
to simply have
aci: (target_from="ldap:///dn_from")(target_to="ldap:///dn_to")...
That would be a possibility, we could have multiple acis of
the form
aci: (target_from="ldap:///dn_from")(target_to="ldap:///dn_to")..allow(moddn);.......
to define all allowed moves.
So two new targets and one new permission: moddn
yes very nice !
That means that to be selected during the scan phase, the aci
should be at upper level that dn_from and dn_to.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean the entry in which you set
the aci attribute must be a parent/ancestor of both the
target_to DN and the target_from DN?
yes
I would prefer not to have that restriction unless:
1) we already have this restriction for (target="ldap:///DN")
clauses
2) it is very difficult to implement
Also what to do if 'target_to'/'target_from' are missing, to
replace them with the entry DN having the aci ?
I think it would be better to have to specify both target_to and
target_from - that way there is no ambiguity.
You still have to handle the problem of referential integrity
e.g. what if someone renames target_from or target_to?
Right. I missed that !
although I'm not sure if any of the other target keywords
are applicable here - like targetattr, targetfilter,
targattrfilter, etc.
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
--
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
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
|
