Clayton Hicklin wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Clayton Hicklin wrote:On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Clayton Hicklin wrote:On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Clayton Hicklin wrote:On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Clayton Hicklin <chicklin@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: "So what I believe in this case, is that the LDAP module might, possibly, rely on the "REMOTE_USER" header that IE is sometimes sending whenthe user is authenticated in the domain. And that one indeed would probably contain the domain and user. If that is the case, then a simple manipulation of the HTTP headers of the request, using standard Apache modules, might be enough to get just the user." I agree, I believe that is exactly what is happening. I can verify that the REMOTE_USER server variable is set to 'domain\user' using PHP (echo $_SERVER['REMOTE_USER']). I didn't realize that you could manipulate headers with Apache. I will definitely look into this as it sounds like that is what I need. Thanks. Clayton On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Clayton Hicklin wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:28 PM, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: Clayton Hicklin wrote:[...] Clayton,Your first communication was a bit summarised, so I did not know to which extent you knew the underlying tidbits, from there my fist answer. I am currently in the middle of the same kind of problematic. I have created an SSO solution that works at the Tomcat level, in a particular context, and and I am interested in a solution at the Apache level, just like you. In the process of creating the Tomcat-level solution, I have learned quite a bit about how IE (and servers) work in that respect, and my questions/opinions are guided by that. I didn't mean to imply that the authentication fails "in" IE. I realize itis at the server. My issue is that I would like a seamless user experience. IE is passing 'domain\user' due to "Windows Integrated Authentication" being turned on and it would be nice if those credentials could be used to authenticate without popping up the login dialog. That is what should indeed happen, if the server supports the related authentication, meaning the authentication "type" that IE istrying. This works using the mod_auth_sspi module (which uses NTLM) but not with LDAPauthentication. Which module are you using for this LDAP authentication ? The reason is that with LDAP authentication, you have tospecify an attribute to search for the username that is passed to Apache.In the case of Active Directory, this attribute is sAMAccountName. This attribute stores the username of the Windows user. The problem is that IE passes 'domain\user' (not just 'user') on it's first attempt at authentication. That's where I am not so sure. What makes you sure that this is indeedwhat is happening ? (I am not saying it is false, I just mean that I have a doubt and would be interested in whether you have really verified this, and how). This obviously fails which causes the login dialog to pop up. You can then just type in your username and password and everythingworks fine. I think the ultimate solution would be to modify the Apache LDAP module to accept a parameter that would optionally strip out the domain portion of the credentials that IE passes. Yes, that kind of what you need, unless that parameter already exists inthe module you are using. It would be relatively surprising if it didn't. But even if it isn't available, there might be another solution, stay with me. That way, we could use IE + APACHE + Active Directory (LDAP) for a seamless SSO solution. I think this would be prettycommon in most corporate environments, which is where this is being implemented. One nore thing I want to add here, is a brief summary of how web authentication works, just in case there is a part in there thatisn't clear to you, and because there is a particular step that may play a role. 0) we imagine that, at the beginning, the browser is just opened, and knows nothing yet of the URL or the server on which it resides. 1) browser sends a request to server for a particular URL. Because the browser at this stage does not know that this URL requires any authentication, the request is sent without any authentication. 2) the server receives this request. It consults its configuration, and sees that this URL requires some form of authentication and/or access control. It thus verifies if the request contains this kind of authentication. If yes, the request goes through and we're done. 3) The request does not contain an authentication (or not one of the accepted type). So the server sends back to the browser a response "401 Authorization required", along with the type of authentication required (NTLM, Basic, Digest are 3 possible, supported by IE), and along (if Basic or Digest) with a "realm" (the protected "area" name on the server). 4) the browser receives the 401 response. It looks at the "authentication type" required, and, *if it can handle that* (which may depend on its settings, security zone etc..) it proceeds to try that kind of authentication. (If the browser cannot handle that particular type of authentication requested by the server, it may check if it has a "fallback type" that it can try. If it doesn't have such a fall-back, I do not know really what happens, but I guess some kind of error at the browser side.) 5) once the browser has "put in the bag" the required pieces for the authentication (as requested by the server, or its fallback type), it re-sends the same original request to the server, but this time it adds an "Authorization:" header with the appropriate content. Now, depending on the case, a back-and-forth dialog *may* take place between the server and the browser. For instance, with IE and NTLM authentication, there are 3 such exchanges before the server and browser are satisfied, and the browser has the right content to send in its "Authorization:" header. I am only pointing this all out so that it would be clearer that it is important to know, for instance, *which* kind of authentication the LDAP module is telling IE (in the 401 message) that is required. Unless this LDAP module can handle an NTLM-type 3-step dialog with IE (like the mod_auth_sspi module can), then probably what the module sends is a response which requires a "Basic" authentication. Does IE then automatically send whatever IE thinks the domain\userid is , as a "Authorization: Basic xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" header containing the user-id and user password ? It seems a bit far-fetched that IE would send the user's password over the network, just Base64-encoded. So what I believe in this case, is that the LDAP module might, possibly, rely on the "REMOTE_USER" header that IE is sometimes sending when the user is authenticated in the domain. And that one indeed would probably contain the domain and user. If that is the case, then a simple manipulation of the HTTP headers of the request, using standard Apache modules, might be enough to get just the user. That was a long message, but in the end the answer may be simple. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --Clayton Hicklin chicklin@xxxxxxxxx Sorry about top-posting on that last message (stupid Gmail :).So, it looks like I need mod_setenvif, right? Could anybody write a quick directive that would look at REMOTE_USER to see if there is a backslash ("\"), and if there is, set the same variable to everything following the backslash? I think this would solve my problem. I would rather use mod_authnz_ldap that mod_auth_sspi as it is included with Apache and is well-supported. I would try the following, but it's mod_headers, not mod_setenvif :RequestHeader edit REMOTE_USER ^(?:[^\\]+\\)(.+)$ $1 the regexp should mean (if really it's a perl regexp) : - for the first () group, match but do not capture - match (potentially) from the beginning, anything before the backslash and the backslash itself, if any such things. - then match whatever is left, and capture it as $1 then replace this all by $1 (the fancy maybe-match stuff is just in case you *don't* get a domain sometimes) That's what I'm trying to do anyway, regexpes are painful (but nice). Please let us know if the whole solution works in the end. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andre,The regex does not compile, according to the Apache error log. The manual says Apache uses PCRE, btw. I will see if I can figure out where the error is. Strange :#!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; my $RU = "domain\\user"; $RU =~ m/^(?:[^\\]+\\)(.+)$/; my $user = $1; print "1) User : $user\n"; $RU = "user"; $RU =~ m/^(?:[^\\]+\\)(.+)$/; $user = $1; print "2) User : $user\n"; exit; output : 1) User : user 2) User : user Maybe under Apache, it escapes the backslashes automatically by itself ? Try : ^(?:[^\]+\)(.+)$ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It keeps saying "regex could not compile" even though I can get it towork in the regex tester. Weird. I think it might not like my (?:...) construct. That's probably "extendedPCRE" stuff. Let's try another one : RequestHeader edit REMOTE_USER ^([^\\]+\\)?(.+)$ $2 (hoping that $1 gets set even to '' if there is no domain) (and yes, the "replacement part" is now $2) --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSame error. I wonder, does my Apache need access to a PCRE implementation (i.e. PERL) or is that compiled in? Maybe that's the problem.
No, it has nothing to do with perl installed, it should be compiled in. But the current on-line documentation for mod_headers has this paragraph : editIf this request header exists, its value is transformed according to a regular expression search-and-replace. The value argument is a regular expression, and the replacement is a replacement string, which may contain backreferences. Available in version 2.2.4 and later.
So, maybe your version does not quite make the cut ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|