RE: How do I require more than one Require ldap-* directive match?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thanks.  I'm in a production environment, so going to the trunk will be a tough sell.  Ryan Patrick offered up a complete patch in 2005 to allow "and" -- reused "Satisfy all", which raised some controversy.

I'll revive/update his patch suggestion, but add a one-off flag for "AuthzLDAPSatisfy all" [defaulting to "any" which yields the current OR behavior].
At the time, Graham L. didn't like the one-off flag, as it was asymmetric with other modules.  I don't see that as an overwhelming concern.

--Pete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Covener [mailto:covener@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:57 PM
> To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  How do I require more than one 
> Require ldap-* directive match?
> 
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Thomas, Peter 
> <pthomas@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I've looked at the mod_authnz_ldap code and the 
> documentation.  "Out 
> > of the box" it sems like there's no way to turn the "OR" 
> behavior of 
> > Require ldap-* lines into "AND."  I've been trying as hard 
> as I can to 
> > avoid creating not only a new provider type but also a new 
> provider. 
> > Unfortunately, the more I dig into mod_authnz_ldap the more 
> it seems like it's not quite what I need.
> > Is there a "right" way to do this?  One thought is creating a hook 
> > that "fakes out" check_user_access by dynamically updating 
> the array 
> > of requires to "present" one ldap-* require line at a time, then 
> > aggregating the results into a single return value.
> >
> > I've seen some pretty subtle tricks from all of you--I'm 
> hoping that 
> > someone out there has a better option than building up a 
> new provider.
> >
> 
> This comes for free in trunk. I'd review a 2.2.x  patch that 
> just changed the way the loop operates to respect an "AND" 
> flag -- my guess is that it is not very hard but I am too 
> swamped to play with it
> 
> The caveat for the doc would would be that it only made sense 
> in an all ldap-* configuration.
> 
> This AND behavior for LDAP authz is frequently requested.
> 
> 
> --
> Eric Covener
> covener@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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



[Index of Archives]     [Open SSH Users]     [Linux ACPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Squid]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux