On 22 Mar 2021, at 21:30, thierry bordaz <tbordaz(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hi, I wrote a small design [1] about OTP password policy that I would like to start implementing. Comments are welcome [1] https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/otp-password-policy.html best regards thierry _______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproje... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

On 24 Mar 2021, at 02:12, thierry bordaz <tbordaz(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hi William Thanks for you review. Some answers are inlined in the mail below. On 3/23/21 12:33 AM, William Brown wrote: > Hey there, > > I think that you also need: > > > pwdOTPValidFromTime > > This way an admin can pre-configure all the OTP's and they only "become valid from" that time frame. IE think university enrollment. You can configure all the OTP's a month before, and they become valid at a specific datetime. That is a very nice idea. Note to be OTP the 'userpassword' of the account must be reset by an admin and the account inheriting password policy with OTP settings. Assuming 'pwdOTPValidFromTime' is the account operational attribute holding a precise time. How should it be computed ? Directly from a precise time set in the password policy or computed from a ' 'passwordOTPValidationDelay' (number of seconds after OTP reset time) or something else ?

> > I think you should make it consistent with passwordOTPExpDelay to pwdOTPExpDelay. Better, OTP means "one time password" so why is it "password one time password". Just make the attributes "OTPExpDelay" or whatever. Alternately make it pwdOT (password one time). ATM password policy ('passwordPolicy') only contains 'password*' attributes this is why I would prefer to keep 'passwordOTP*' (e.g. passwordOTPMaxUse, passwordOTPExpirationDelay, passwordOTPValidFromTime'). I agree that 'passwordOTP' looks weird ("password one time password") but the first 'password' is the way the password policy attribute are prefixed.

Then the account operational attributes updated via password policy. There is a mix. 6 out of 10 start with 'password' (like 'passwordExpirationTime') 2 out of 10 start with 'pwd' (like 'pwdReset') The two remaining are 'retryCountResetTime' and 'accountUnlockTime'. I choose the 'pwdOTP' prefix because the feature is somehow related to 'pwdReset' and also I preferred a different prefix than the password policy. > > I think passwordOTPExpDelay can be remove if you have ValidFromTime instead. Why ? Registration should be done after Now+ValidFromTime and before Now+passwordOTPExpDelay. So the two are useful.

> > > The OC should be named onetimepasswordPolicy instead. Do you suggest we have two password policies OC: passwordPolicy and OnTimePasswordPolicy. OTP relying on 'passwordMustChange' then OnTimePasswordPolicy should allow 'passwordMustChange'

> > > Hope that helps! Absolutely it helps a lot. Thanks ! thierry > > >> On 22 Mar 2021, at 21:30, thierry bordaz <tbordaz(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I wrote a small design [1] about OTP password policy that I would like to start implementing. >> Comments are welcome >> >> [1] https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/otp-password-policy.html >> >> best regards >> thierry >> _______________________________________________ >> 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproje... >> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > — > Sincerely, > > William Brown > > Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server > SUSE Labs, Australia > _______________________________________________ > 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproje... > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

On 3/24/21 12:16 AM, William Brown wrote: >> On 24 Mar 2021, at 02:12, thierry bordaz&lt;tbordaz(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi William >> >> Thanks for you review. Some answers are inlined in the mail below. >> >> On 3/23/21 12:33 AM, William Brown wrote: >>> Hey there, >>> >>> I think that you also need: >>> >>> >>> pwdOTPValidFromTime >>> >>> This way an admin can pre-configure all the OTP's and they only "become valid from" that time frame. IE think university enrollment. You can configure all the OTP's a month before, and they become valid at a specific datetime. >> That is a very nice idea. Note to be OTP the 'userpassword' of the account must be reset by an admin and the account inheriting password policy with OTP settings. >> Assuming 'pwdOTPValidFromTime' is the account operational attribute holding a precise time. How should it be computed ? Directly from a precise time set in the password policy or computed from a ' 'passwordOTPValidationDelay' (number of seconds after OTP reset time) or something else ? > I think maybe it could be easy to visualise it. > > > We have time going from past to future like: > > > past ---------------------------------------------------------> future > > > So we want a window of: > > * When can the OTP start to be used? > * When is the OTP no longer able to be used? > > So my thinking is: > > past ---------------------------------------------------------> future > ^ ^ ^ > | | | > otp created | | > otp valid from | > otp expire at > > > So I would say otp valid from and the otp expire should be *absolute* date times in UTC. Hi William Good idea of that graphic. I am sorry to be so slow to understand but still things are not clear. There are the attributes of the password policy and the operational attribute of the user account. I think you meant and I agree with you that operational attributes (in the user account) should be absolute date. What is not clear to me is how to compute those operational attributes from the password policy. I see three options: 1. password policy contains absolute time (e.g. passwordOTPValidFromUTC) => account.validFrom = policyValidFromUTC 2. password policy contains a delay after OTP create/reset (e.g. passwordOTPValidFromDelay) => account.validFrom = Now + policyValidFromDelay 3. password policy contains both and if both are set we should give the priority to one or the other If a password policy is a stable entry, then they should not contain absolute time. If we imagine password policy created on purpose to do a bunch of registration, then that is okay if they contain absolute time. Do you think we should support password policy with absolute time ?

thanks thierry > And then within that otp valid from - expire at time window, we have the "max use" field of how many times it can be used. > > Does that help? > > >>> I think you should make it consistent with passwordOTPExpDelay to pwdOTPExpDelay. Better, OTP means "one time password" so why is it "password one time password". Just make the attributes "OTPExpDelay" or whatever. Alternately make it pwdOT (password one time). >> ATM password policy ('passwordPolicy') only contains 'password*' attributes this is why I would prefer to keep 'passwordOTP*' (e.g. passwordOTPMaxUse, passwordOTPExpirationDelay, passwordOTPValidFromTime'). >> I agree that 'passwordOTP' looks weird ("password one time password") but the first 'password' is the way the password policy attribute are prefixed. > Ahh I think I missed that this is using the userPassword and combined with passwordPolicy. That makes sense now. > > Still better to keep it consistent - all pwd or all password. I think you mix/match these .... > >> Then the account operational attributes updated via password policy. There is a mix. >> 6 out of 10 start with 'password' (like 'passwordExpirationTime') >> 2 out of 10 start with 'pwd' (like 'pwdReset') >> The two remaining are 'retryCountResetTime' and 'accountUnlockTime'. >> I choose the 'pwdOTP' prefix because the feature is somehow related to 'pwdReset' and also I preferred a different prefix than the password policy. >>> I think passwordOTPExpDelay can be remove if you have ValidFromTime instead. >> Why ? Registration should be done after Now+ValidFromTime and before Now+passwordOTPExpDelay. >> So the two are useful. > I'd see above :) > >>> The OC should be named onetimepasswordPolicy instead. >> Do you suggest we have two password policies OC: passwordPolicy and OnTimePasswordPolicy. >> OTP relying on 'passwordMustChange' then OnTimePasswordPolicy should allow 'passwordMustChange' > Ignore this comment - I think I missed about the passwordPolicy bit :) > >>> Hope that helps! >> Absolutely it helps a lot. Thanks ! >> >> thierry >>>> On 22 Mar 2021, at 21:30, thierry bordaz&lt;tbordaz(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I wrote a small design [1] about OTP password policy that I would like to start implementing. >>>> Comments are welcome >>>> >>>> [1]https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/otp-password-policy.html >>>> >>>> best regards >>>> thierry >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 389-devel mailing list --389-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to389-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >>>> Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >>>> List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >>>> List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fe... >>>> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure >>> — >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> William Brown >>> >>> Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server >>> SUSE Labs, Australia >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 389-devel mailing list --389-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to389-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >>> Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >>> List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >>> List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fe... >>> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > — > Sincerely, > > William Brown > > Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server > SUSE Labs, Australia > _______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproje... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

>>> I think maybe it could be easy to visualise it. >>> >>> >>> We have time going from past to future like: >>> >>> >>> past ---------------------------------------------------------> future >>> >>> >>> So we want a window of: >>> >>> * When can the OTP start to be used? >>> * When is the OTP no longer able to be used? >>> >>> So my thinking is: >>> >>> past ---------------------------------------------------------> future >>> ^ ^ ^ >>> | | | >>> otp created | | >>> otp valid from | >>> otp expire at >>> >>> >>> So I would say otp valid from and the otp expire should be *absolute* date times in UTC. >>> >> Hi William >> >> Good idea of that graphic. I am sorry to be so slow to understand but still things are not clear. >> There are the attributes of the password policy and the operational attribute of the user account. >> >> I think you meant and I agree with you that operational attributes (in the user account) should be absolute date. >> What is not clear to me is how to compute those operational attributes from the password policy. >> I see three options: >> • password policy contains absolute time (e.g. passwordOTPValidFromUTC) => account.validFrom = policyValidFromUTC >> • password policy contains a delay after OTP create/reset (e.g. passwordOTPValidFromDelay) => account.validFrom = Now + policyValidFromDelay >> • password policy contains both and if both are set we should give the priority to one or the other >> If a password policy is a stable entry, then they should not contain absolute time. If we imagine password policy created on purpose to do a bunch of registration, then that is okay if they contain absolute time. >> >> Do you think we should support password policy with absolute time ? >> > No we should not store actual times in the config. These time values need to live in the entry itself, just like passwordExpirationtime. Perhaps this is a good candidate to handle through the CLI (maybe even a new task that uses a filter, base, etc)? I'm a bit confused about this answer but:

I think there are no "operational" attributes here. These should all be absolute dates, set on the entry. No calculation or whatever needed. There is no policy at all. Basicly you just have a mechanic that sets on the account that this password is only valid in these time windows, and can only be used a maximum number of times. > Mark > — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs, Australia

> On 25 Mar 2021, at 12:00, Mark Reynolds <mreynolds(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On 3/24/21 8:32 PM, William Brown wrote: >>>>> I think maybe it could be easy to visualise it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We have time going from past to future like: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> past ---------------------------------------------------------> future >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So we want a window of: >>>>> >>>>> * When can the OTP start to be used? >>>>> * When is the OTP no longer able to be used? >>>>> >>>>> So my thinking is: >>>>> >>>>> past ---------------------------------------------------------> future >>>>> ^ ^ ^ >>>>> | | | >>>>> otp created | | >>>>> otp valid from | >>>>> otp expire at >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So I would say otp valid from and the otp expire should be *absolute* date times in UTC. >>>>> >>>> Hi William >>>> >>>> Good idea of that graphic. I am sorry to be so slow to understand but still things are not clear. >>>> There are the attributes of the password policy and the operational attribute of the user account. >>>> >>>> I think you meant and I agree with you that operational attributes (in the user account) should be absolute date. >>>> What is not clear to me is how to compute those operational attributes from the password policy. >>>> I see three options: >>>> • password policy contains absolute time (e.g. passwordOTPValidFromUTC) => account.validFrom = policyValidFromUTC >>>> • password policy contains a delay after OTP create/reset (e.g. passwordOTPValidFromDelay) => account.validFrom = Now + policyValidFromDelay >>>> • password policy contains both and if both are set we should give the priority to one or the other >>>> If a password policy is a stable entry, then they should not contain absolute time. If we imagine password policy created on purpose to do a bunch of registration, then that is okay if they contain absolute time. >>>> >>>> Do you think we should support password policy with absolute time ? >>>> >>> No we should not store actual times in the config. These time values need to live in the entry itself, just like passwordExpirationtime. Perhaps this is a good candidate to handle through the CLI (maybe even a new task that uses a filter, base, etc)? >> I'm a bit confused about this answer but: > Theirry thought you wanted to set: > > > dn: cn=config > passwordOTPStartTime: 2021034578489754Z > > > But I was saying it should be in the entry, not cn=config, like how we use passwordExpirationtime: > > > uid=mark,dc=example,dc=com > passwordOTPStartTime: 2021034578489754Z Yep, this is exactly what I meant :) > > Mark > >> I think there are no "operational" attributes here. These should all be absolute dates, set on the entry. No calculation or whatever needed.

>> >> There is no policy at all. Basicly you just have a mechanic that sets on the account that this password is only valid in these time windows, and can only be used a maximum number of times. >> >> >> >>> Mark >>> >> — >> Sincerely, >> >> William Brown >> >> Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server >> SUSE Labs, Australia >> > -- > > 389 Directory Server Development Team — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs, Australia

> On 25 Mar 2021, at 17:49, thierry bordaz <tbordaz(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On 3/25/21 3:20 AM, William Brown wrote: >>> On 25 Mar 2021, at 12:00, Mark Reynolds <mreynolds(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/24/21 8:32 PM, William Brown wrote: >>>>>>> I think maybe it could be easy to visualise it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have time going from past to future like: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> past ---------------------------------------------------------> future >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So we want a window of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * When can the OTP start to be used? >>>>>>> * When is the OTP no longer able to be used? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So my thinking is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> past ---------------------------------------------------------> future >>>>>>> ^ ^ ^ >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> otp created | | >>>>>>> otp valid from | >>>>>>> otp expire at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I would say otp valid from and the otp expire should be *absolute* date times in UTC. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi William >>>>>> >>>>>> Good idea of that graphic. I am sorry to be so slow to understand but still things are not clear. >>>>>> There are the attributes of the password policy and the operational attribute of the user account. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you meant and I agree with you that operational attributes (in the user account) should be absolute date. >>>>>> What is not clear to me is how to compute those operational attributes from the password policy. >>>>>> I see three options: >>>>>> • password policy contains absolute time (e.g. passwordOTPValidFromUTC) => account.validFrom = policyValidFromUTC >>>>>> • password policy contains a delay after OTP create/reset (e.g. passwordOTPValidFromDelay) => account.validFrom = Now + policyValidFromDelay >>>>>> • password policy contains both and if both are set we should give the priority to one or the other >>>>>> If a password policy is a stable entry, then they should not contain absolute time. If we imagine password policy created on purpose to do a bunch of registration, then that is okay if they contain absolute time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you think we should support password policy with absolute time ? >>>>>> >>>>> No we should not store actual times in the config. These time values need to live in the entry itself, just like passwordExpirationtime. Perhaps this is a good candidate to handle through the CLI (maybe even a new task that uses a filter, base, etc)? >>>> I'm a bit confused about this answer but: >>> Theirry thought you wanted to set: >>> >>> >>> dn: cn=config >>> passwordOTPStartTime: 2021034578489754Z >>> >>> >>> But I was saying it should be in the entry, not cn=config, like how we use passwordExpirationtime: >>> >>> >>> uid=mark,dc=example,dc=com >>> passwordOTPStartTime: 2021034578489754Z >> Yep, this is exactly what I meant :) >> >>> Mark >>> >>>> I think there are no "operational" attributes here. These should all be absolute dates, set on the entry. No calculation or whatever needed. > Thanks Mark, William for the clarification. > Actually OTP is an extension of the current password policy. So there are new attribute in the password policy entry and new (operational) attributes in the account entry. > > I understand and agree that attributes (in the account entry) that represent a window of validity will be absolute time. > > For example we will have, assuming that an admin reset the userpassword of 'uid=mark' at 10AM we will have > > dn: cn=config > passwordMustChange: on > passwordOTPValidFromDelay: 1800 > passwordOTPExpireDelay: 3600 > passwordOTPMaxUse: 3 I actually don't think any of these fields in cn=config are required, and actually limit the capability of this.

> > dn: uid=mark,dc=example,dc=com > userpassword: xxx > pwdOTPReset: true > pwdOTPUseCount: 0 > pwdOTPValidFrom: 20210325103000Z > pwdOTPExpireAt: 20210325110000Z You should add pwdOTPMaxUse: X here. The reason I say this is it grants flexibility. Imagine say ... we are enrolling 10,000 students to a university and creating their new accounts. We want to set exact times on their accounts and say ... given them 10 tries or something. But at the same time we need to reset someones account. For them, we want them to have say ... 1 attempt to do the reset, and have a different time window. All the cn=config fields do here is confuse and complicate the system - what is their purpose but to "template" out some values into the entry?

In this matter, I think that all the OTP fields should be on the entry to allow more possibilities of how the pwdOTP can be used in diverse situations. > Meaning the user 'Mark' should complete his registration between 10:30AM and 11AM and he will be granted 3 tries to bind with the registration password and change his password > > thanks > thierry > >>>> There is no policy at all. Basicly you just have a mechanic that sets on the account that this password is only valid in these time windows, and can only be used a maximum number of times. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>> — >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> William Brown >>>> >>>> Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server >>>> SUSE Labs, Australia >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> 389 Directory Server Development Team >> — >> Sincerely, >> >> William Brown >> >> Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server >> SUSE Labs, Australia — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs, Australia