|
Thanks for your comments, William.
On 05/31/2016 07:22 PM, William Brown wrote: I'm worried there could be administrators who want to have a full control on the shadow values with no interest on the DS password policy... I guess the reporter of this ticket is one of them.On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 17:48 -0700, Noriko Hosoi wrote:https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48833 There are 2 proposals. I'd like to have your thoughts which one would be preferable. https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48833/0001-Ticket-48833-389-showing-inconsistent-values-for-sha.2.patch git patch file (master) -- second proposal -- this patch allows the password policy values and shadow account values in sync. If we choose this option, DS Console Password Policy panel needs to be modified to support the larger value than INT_MAX. https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48833/0001-Ticket-48833-389-showing-inconsistent-values-for-sha.patch git patch file (master) -- first proposal -- shadow account values won't be touched if they already exist in an entry. Restrictions: 1. If objectclass: shadowaccount is set and there is no shadow account values in an entry, the shadowmax, min, and warning are filled by calculating them from the password policy values. The maximum value of calculated shadowMax is 24855 (== 2^31-1 / (24 * 60 * 60)). 2. Even if the values of the password policy are updated, shadow account values are not effected.I'm for option 1. I believe our shadow and password policy should be in sync. This prevents admins making mistakes, and allows clients to gain functionality. There is no reasonable benefit IMO to having shadow and ldap policy out of sync. Thanks, --noriko It also means that a seamless upgrade occurs, where existing sites, with existing (bad) shadow data, well begin to get the benefit of a now *working* shadow value. Thanks,
|
-- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
