IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Fri, 10 January 2014 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@stroeder.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D167E1AE064 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:34:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.839
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.839 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Us4ce7dcbUK for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE901AE059 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7E1607FB for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:34:01 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stroeder.com
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv1.stroeder.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uhD93B935McD for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:33:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.1.0.2] (unknown [10.1.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Michael Str??der", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D37116075E for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:33:55 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <52D004CF.4070301@stroeder.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:33:51 +0100
From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 SeaMonkey/2.23
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ldapext <ldapext@ietf.org>
References: <52C9BED5.2080900@proseconsulting.co.uk> <52CAEA7D.5030002@highlandsun.com> <1389033674.27654.32.camel@pico.ipa.ssimo.org> <52CB2030.3010403@proseconsulting.co.uk> <1389050240.27654.67.camel@pico.ipa.ssimo.org> <52CDB6B2.2080406@proseconsulting.co.uk> <52CEBEAE.5090701@stroeder.com> <20140109174321.GV3938@slab.skills-1st.co.uk> <52CFFEAC.7070208@proseconsulting.co.uk> <C6DD84E6-0D5D-4F7A-90DF-46C382D4B06A@padl.com>
In-Reply-To: <C6DD84E6-0D5D-4F7A-90DF-46C382D4B06A@padl.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms010506050805000006000601"
Subject: Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:34:15 -0000

Luke Howard wrote:
>>> Every LDAP-aware client system that I have worked with can use the
>>> bind operation as a means to validate passwords, so the only
>>> possible excuse for exporting hashes is temporary support of
>>> migrating systems. If you only allow the export of hashes that are
>>> actually needed by the old non-LDAP systems then at least you are
>>> not making matters worse than they were before the migration.
>>
>> Ok, so I posed this question just now, but can all LDAP servers you can think of authentication bind operations using CRYPT-style passwords?  If it can be done server-side there'll be no problem here and we need never expose the hashes to clients.
> 
> Active Directory cannot.

Right.

But it's not a real operational issue because if you already have an AD domain
with a big user base they already have passwords set for Windows anyway.

Ciao, Michael.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email