Today's Topics:
1. setting ACI to countryCode attribute (Elisseev V.) 2. Re: setting ACI to countryCode attribute (Rich Megginson) 3. Re: setting ACI to countryCode attribute (Rob Crittenden) 4. Re: setting ACI to countryCode attribute (Elisseev V.) 5. Re: Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes (Anderson, Cary@CIO) 6. Re: Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes (Rich Megginson) 7. Password policy questions (Greg Kuchyt) 8. Re: Password policy questions (Rich Megginson) 9. Re: Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes (Morris, Patrick) 10. Fedora 17 64 bits doesn't shutdown. (Spolti)
Good morning guys, Yesterday i upgrade my fedora 16 to fedora 17, since then i need turn my pc off by pressing the shutdown button only.
Anyone had this problem to?
Regards!.
2012/7/10 389-users-request@lists.fedoraproject.org
Send 389-users mailing list submissions to 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 389-users-request@lists.fedoraproject.org
You can reach the person managing the list at 389-users-owner@lists.fedoraproject.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of 389-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
- setting ACI to countryCode attribute (Elisseev V.)
- Re: setting ACI to countryCode attribute (Rich Megginson)
- Re: setting ACI to countryCode attribute (Rob Crittenden)
- Re: setting ACI to countryCode attribute (Elisseev V.)
- Re: Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes (Anderson, Cary@CIO)
- Re: Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes (Rich Megginson)
- Password policy questions (Greg Kuchyt)
- Re: Password policy questions (Rich Megginson)
- Re: Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes (Morris, Patrick)
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:28:37 +0200 From: "Elisseev V." vovan@vovan.nl To: 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [389-users] setting ACI to countryCode attribute Message-ID: 1341930517.3558.58.camel@laptop Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hello,
I'm trying to define ACI for "countryCode" attribute and getting an error "Attribute is not defined in the schema". However, i can create an entry with this attribute. Could somebody clarify what the problem is.
Thank you in advance, Vlad.
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:37:48 -0600 From: Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: [389-users] setting ACI to countryCode attribute Message-ID: 4FFC3E3C.8090106@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 07/10/2012 08:28 AM, Elisseev V. wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to define ACI for "countryCode" attribute and getting an error "Attribute is not defined in the schema". However, i can create an entry with this attribute. Could somebody clarify what the problem is.
There is no countryCode attribute defined in the 389 schema. Are you perhaps creating an entry with objectclass: extensibleObject?
Thank you in advance, Vlad.
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
Message: 3 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:38:46 -0400 From: Rob Crittenden rcritten@redhat.com To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: [389-users] setting ACI to countryCode attribute Message-ID: 4FFC3E76.6050205@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Elisseev V. wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to define ACI for "countryCode" attribute and getting an error "Attribute is not defined in the schema". However, i can create an entry with this attribute. Could somebody clarify what the problem is.
It would help to see the aci you are trying to add.
rob
Message: 4 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:48:43 +0200 From: "Elisseev V." vovan@vovan.nl To: Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com Cc: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: [389-users] setting ACI to countryCode attribute Message-ID: 1341931723.3558.60.camel@laptop Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
That's true... one of the values in the objectclass is extensibleObject.
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 08:37 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 07/10/2012 08:28 AM, Elisseev V. wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to define ACI for "countryCode" attribute and getting an error "Attribute is not defined in the schema". However, i can create
an
entry with this attribute. Could somebody clarify what the problem is.
There is no countryCode attribute defined in the 389 schema. Are you perhaps creating an entry with objectclass: extensibleObject?
Thank you in advance, Vlad.
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
Message: 5 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:01:01 -0700 From: "Anderson, Cary@CIO" Cary.Anderson@State.ca.gov To: 'Rich Megginson' rmeggins@redhat.com, 'General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.' 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes Message-ID: < 8E433F62879B78449F9FF77C24ED7535985D40221C@MDTSSWECCR14.rf01.itservices.ca.gov
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thanks for the quick response.
The RHN knowledgebase article I found was titled: "How to use "host" attribute to limit ldap users can be accessed by specified host?" kb# 65838
https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/solutions/65838
From: Rich Megginson [mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 9:14 AM To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. Cc: Anderson, Cary@CIO Subject: Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes
On 07/09/2012 09:44 AM, Anderson, Cary@CIO wrote:
I have recently started working with the Director Server, and I have read the documents for both 389 and RHDS, but I am having some difficulties regarding ObjectClass types, and combining them in order to extend the available attributes for an object. The documents indicate that you can only have one Structural ObjectClass and multiple Aux. ObjectClasses, and I'm a bit hazy on the rules for Abstract ObjectClasses.
If I take the example of needing to add the "host" attribute to a user object. A RHN knowledgebase article indicates to add the "hostobject" ObjectClass rather than the "Account" ObjectClass.
Can you provide a link to this kbase article?
My assumption was that "hostobject" was an Aux. ObjectClass, and that "Account" was Structural, but when I look at the two ObjectClasses via the administrative GUI, they both have "Top" listed as the parent ObjectClass. So I'm not certain why one is appropriate and the other is not. It would appear the console does not tell you if the objectclass is structural, auxiliary, or abstract. You cannot tell by just the inheritance - by default, all objectclasses have "top" as the superior unless otherwise specified.
This is the official LDAPv3 description - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4512.txt
An entry may have only one STRUCTURAL objectclass, and multiple AUXILIARY objectclasses. Chances are you will want to use AUXILIARY objectclasses for your extra attributes (like posixAccount) and just use one of the pre-defined objectclasses (like inetOrgPerson) as your STRUCTURAL objectclass.
Moving forward I want to be able to combine ObjectClasses to extend available objects without introducing data integrity issues in my ldap directory. I am looking for some clarification of rules regarding structural objectclasses, See rfc4512
and if there is an easy way via the admin gui to tell the difference between structural, auxillary, and abstract objectclasses. No. You'll have to search cn=schema to check: ldapsearch -xLLL -s base -b "cn=schema" "objectclass=*" objectclasses | perl -p0e 's/\n //g' | grep AUXILIARY
Note that ldapsearch wraps the output, so you'll have to use perl (or sed) to unwrap - see http://richmegginson.livejournal.com/18726.html
Also will the directory do some sort of intregrity checking if you attempt to combine improper objectclasses either via commandline or the admin gui? Yes, although by default 389 will allow an entry to have multiple structural objectclasses, but that will change in a future release, so don't rely on that behavior.
Thanks
Cary Anderson 916.464.5108
Linux Support | Engineering Dept.
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: < http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20120710/7ff4...
Message: 6 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:45:40 -0600 From: Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com To: "Anderson, Cary@CIO" Cary.Anderson@State.ca.gov Cc: "'General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.'" 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes Message-ID: 4FFC4E24.8060800@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 07/10/2012 09:01 AM, Anderson, Cary@CIO wrote:
Thanks for the quick response.
The RHN knowledgebase article I found was titled: "How to use "host" attribute to limit ldap users can be accessed by specified host?" kb# 65838
It doesn't say anything about an "Account" objectclass.
See also http://port389.org/wiki/Howto:Posix
*From:*Rich Megginson [mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 09, 2012 9:14 AM *To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. *Cc:* Anderson, Cary@CIO *Subject:* Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes
On 07/09/2012 09:44 AM, Anderson, Cary@CIO wrote:
I have recently started working with the Director Server, and I have read the documents for both 389 and RHDS, but I am having some difficulties regarding ObjectClass types, and combining them in order to extend the available attributes for an object. The documents indicate that you can only have one Structural ObjectClass and multiple Aux. ObjectClasses, and I'm a bit hazy on the rules for Abstract ObjectClasses.
If I take the example of needing to add the "host" attribute to a user object. A RHN knowledgebase article indicates to add the "hostobject" ObjectClass rather than the "Account" ObjectClass.
Can you provide a link to this kbase article?
My assumption was that "hostobject" was an Aux. ObjectClass, and that "Account" was Structural, but when I look at the two ObjectClasses via the administrative GUI, they both have "Top" listed as the parent ObjectClass. So I'm not certain why one is appropriate and the other is not.
It would appear the console does not tell you if the objectclass is structural, auxiliary, or abstract. You cannot tell by just the inheritance - by default, all objectclasses have "top" as the superior unless otherwise specified.
This is the official LDAPv3 description - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4512.txt
An entry may have only one STRUCTURAL objectclass, and multiple AUXILIARY objectclasses. Chances are you will want to use AUXILIARY objectclasses for your extra attributes (like posixAccount) and just use one of the pre-defined objectclasses (like inetOrgPerson) as your STRUCTURAL objectclass.
Moving forward I want to be able to combine ObjectClasses to extend available objects without introducing data integrity issues in my ldap directory. I am looking for some clarification of rules regarding structural objectclasses,
See rfc4512
and if there is an easy way via the admin gui to tell the difference between structural, auxillary, and abstract objectclasses.
No. You'll have to search cn=schema to check: ldapsearch -xLLL -s base -b "cn=schema" "objectclass=*" objectclasses | perl -p0e 's/\n //g' | grep AUXILIARY
Note that ldapsearch wraps the output, so you'll have to use perl (or sed) to unwrap - see http://richmegginson.livejournal.com/18726.html
Also will the directory do some sort of intregrity checking if you attempt to combine improper objectclasses either via commandline or the admin gui?
Yes, although by default 389 will allow an entry to have multiple structural objectclasses, but that will change in a future release, so don't rely on that behavior.
Thanks
Cary Anderson*
**916.464.5108
*Linux Support**|****Engineering Dept**.*
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: < http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20120710/3f8b...
Message: 7 Date: 10 Jul 2012 10:59:05 -0400 From: "Greg Kuchyt" kuchytgj@potsdam.edu To: 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [389-users] Password policy questions Message-ID: 4FFC4339.3080303@potsdam.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
First off, I'm sorry if I missed a document somewhere that covers this, but after some searching I failed to find such a source that explicitly spells this out. In order to verify my findings in testing, I had a couple questions about the userPassword attribute and its relationship to the password policy.
Is it accurate that the 389DS password policy only comes into effect when the LDAPv3 password modify operation is used (i.e. via ldappasswd)? I noticed that setting a default password hashing algorithm does not affect my ability to use any type of hash or clear text in the userPassword attribute or bind.
We have historically managed the userPassword field like it is any other field and are looking to switch the hash type we use to store passwords. I was wondering what exactly switching the default password algorithm "does". From my testing it appears that it does not affect the existing data or manual changes to it. This leads me to believe it only comes into play during the password modify extended operation.
Thanks for any help, and again my apologies if this is covered somewhere and I failed to find it.
Message: 8 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:33:06 -0600 From: Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: [389-users] Password policy questions Message-ID: 4FFC6752.6060509@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 07/10/2012 08:59 AM, Greg Kuchyt wrote:
First off, I'm sorry if I missed a document somewhere that covers this, but after some searching I failed to find such a source that explicitly spells this out. In order to verify my findings in testing, I had a couple questions about the userPassword attribute and its relationship to the password policy.
Is it accurate that the 389DS password policy only comes into effect when the LDAPv3 password modify operation is used (i.e. via ldappasswd)?
or an ldap MODIFY operation of the userPassword attribute.
I noticed that setting a default password hashing algorithm does not affect my ability to use any type of hash or clear text in the userPassword attribute or bind.
We have historically managed the userPassword field like it is any other field and are looking to switch the hash type we use to store passwords. I was wondering what exactly switching the default password algorithm "does". From my testing it appears that it does not affect the existing data or manual changes to it. This leads me to believe it only comes into play during the password modify extended operation.
or an ldap MODIFY operation of the userPassword attribute.
Thanks for any help, and again my apologies if this is covered somewhere and I failed to find it.
There is some info here -
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.0/html/Administ...
What you really want to do is only send cleartext passwords to the directory server, use only LDAP MODIFY or the password extop to change it, and use only the LDAP BIND operation to authenticate to the directory server. This will allow the directory server to internally hash it for storage and comparison.
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
Message: 9 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:22:13 +0000 From: "Morris, Patrick" patrick.morris@hp.com To: "389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org" 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org, " Cary.Anderson@State.ca.gov" Cary.Anderson@State.ca.gov Subject: Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes Message-ID: < B70713EB4E55C84C963B37DE9E63011B50DD3F0F@G4W3223.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The second link you provided (at port 389.org) specifically mentions using the “account” objectclass. I don’t have access to RHN to read the first link, though.
From: 389-users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto: 389-users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Rich Megginson Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:46 AM To: Anderson, Cary@CIO Cc: 'General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.' Subject: Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes
On 07/10/2012 09:01 AM, Anderson, Cary@CIO wrote:
Thanks for the quick response.
The RHN knowledgebase article I found was titled: "How to use "host" attribute to limit ldap users can be accessed by specified host?" kb# 65838
https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/solutions/65838
It doesn't say anything about an "Account" objectclass.
See also http://port389.org/wiki/Howto:Posix
From: Rich Megginson [mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 9:14 AM To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. Cc: Anderson, Cary@CIO Subject: Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add attributes
On 07/09/2012 09:44 AM, Anderson, Cary@CIO wrote:
I have recently started working with the Director Server, and I have read the documents for both 389 and RHDS, but I am having some difficulties regarding ObjectClass types, and combining them in order to extend the available attributes for an object. The documents indicate that you can only have one Structural ObjectClass and multiple Aux. ObjectClasses, and I'm a bit hazy on the rules for Abstract ObjectClasses.
If I take the example of needing to add the "host" attribute to a user object. A RHN knowledgebase article indicates to add the "hostobject" ObjectClass rather than the "Account" ObjectClass.
Can you provide a link to this kbase article?
My assumption was that "hostobject" was an Aux. ObjectClass, and that "Account" was Structural, but when I look at the two ObjectClasses via the administrative GUI, they both have "Top" listed as the parent ObjectClass. So I'm not certain why one is appropriate and the other is not.
It would appear the console does not tell you if the objectclass is structural, auxiliary, or abstract. You cannot tell by just the inheritance - by default, all objectclasses have "top" as the superior unless otherwise specified.
This is the official LDAPv3 description - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4512.txt
An entry may have only one STRUCTURAL objectclass, and multiple AUXILIARY objectclasses. Chances are you will want to use AUXILIARY objectclasses for your extra attributes (like posixAccount) and just use one of the pre-defined objectclasses (like inetOrgPerson) as your STRUCTURAL objectclass.
Moving forward I want to be able to combine ObjectClasses to extend available objects without introducing data integrity issues in my ldap directory. I am looking for some clarification of rules regarding structural objectclasses,
See rfc4512
and if there is an easy way via the admin gui to tell the difference between structural, auxillary, and abstract objectclasses.
No. You'll have to search cn=schema to check: ldapsearch -xLLL -s base -b "cn=schema" "objectclass=*" objectclasses | perl -p0e 's/\n //g' | grep AUXILIARY
Note that ldapsearch wraps the output, so you'll have to use perl (or sed) to unwrap - see http://richmegginson.livejournal.com/18726.html
Also will the directory do some sort of intregrity checking if you attempt to combine improper objectclasses either via commandline or the admin gui?
Yes, although by default 389 will allow an entry to have multiple structural objectclasses, but that will change in a future release, so don't rely on that behavior.
Thanks
Cary Anderson 916.464.5108
Linux Support | Engineering Dept.
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: < http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20120711/0b97...
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 6231 bytes Desc: not available URL: < http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20120711/0b97...
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
End of 389-users Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org