June 2024 - FreeIPA-users - Fedora mailing-lists

freeipa behind loadbalancer? is it doable?
by slek kus 14 Jun '24

14 Jun '24

Hi, I have placed a load balancer (using netfilter's LVS) before both freeipa servers (main and replica). Trying to join a client pointing to this loadbalancer simply doesn't work. Firewall is tested and all needed ports are open and correctly forwarded to the freeipa nodes. Also tried adding the lb dns rec to the existing DNS record types, such as ldap, kerberos, ns, txt etc.. Has anyone attempted freeipa invalid behind an LB? Is this a terrible idea and if possible does anyone have any pointers? ADDING CLIENT RESULTS IN: Using existing certificate '/etc/ipa/ca.crt'. Skip idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid: LDAP server is not responding, unable to verify if this is an IPA server Failed to verify that idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid is an IPA Server. This may mean that the remote server is not up or is not reachable due to network or firewall settings. Please make sure the following ports are opened in the firewall settings: TCP: 80, 88, 389 UDP: 88 (at least one of TCP/UDP ports 88 has to be open) Also note that following ports are necessary for ipa-client working properly after enrollment: TCP: 464 UDP: 464, 123 (if NTP enabled) The ipa-client-install command failed. See /var/log/ipaclient-install.log for more information DEBUG: 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG stderr= 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG Deleting invalidalid keytab: '/etc/krb5.keytab'. 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z WARNING Using existing certificate '/etc/ipa/ca.crt'. 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG [IPA Discovery] 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG Starting IPA discovery with domain=linux.redacted.invalid, servers=['idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid'], hostname=happyhost.infra.redacted.invalid 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG Server and domain forced 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG [Kerberos realm search] 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG Kerberos realm forced 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG [LDAP server check] 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG Verifying that idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid (realm LINUX.redacted.invalid) is an IPA server 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG Init LDAP connection to: ldap://idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid:389 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG LDAP Error: cannot connect to 'ldap://idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid:389': 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z WARNING Skip idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid: LDAP server is not responding, unable to verify if this is an IPA server 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG Discovery result: NO_LDAP_SERVER; server=None, domain=linux.redacted.invalid, kdc=idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid, basedn=None 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z DEBUG Validated servers: 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z ERROR Failed to verify that idmlb.linux.redacted.invalid is an IPA Server. 2024-06-13T14:18:36Z ERROR This may mean that the remote server is not up or is not reachable due to network or firewall settings.

1 1

Strange user search result limits appeared
by Anton PalkoBrosov 12 Jun '24

12 Jun '24

I make some synchronization features with freeipa. For this i need to fetch users from LDAP db. By default search limit is 2000 users both in GUI and API. So i made modofications in freeipa configs ldapmodify -x -D "cn=Directory Manager" -W -H ldap://localhost dn: cn=config changetype: modify replace: nsslapd-sizelimit nsslapd-sizelimit: 20000000 so all started to work fine, for starter there were just around 3000 users in db so it worked fine, returned all users. then i started to generate new users to see perfomance of DB, so i used "pkey_only: true" in "user_find" command so when quantity of users reached 90k users it spend around 25sec to response, so ok its tolerable.... so all 90k+ users still returned by API So issue happened when quantity of users reached around 100к+ users, so search limit shrinked to 49629 users shrikage info started to add to responses "count": 49629, "truncated": true, "messages": [ { "type": "warning", "name": "SearchResultTruncated", "message": "Search result has been truncated: Configured administrative server limit exceeded", "code": 13017, "data": { "reason": "Configured administrative server limit exceeded" } } ] i do not do anything with freeipa server, just worked python script which generated users, script worked delicate and slow , he always waited for response from API that user created before creating another one user, so there were no high parallel overload on DB so i searched for nsslapd-sizelimit again with command: ldapsearch -x -D "cn=Directory Manager" -W -H ldap://localhost -b "cn=config" nsslapd-sizelimit but is showed normally nsslapd-sizelimit: 20000000 so with settings all fine, it shows that number that i set so what happened? Where freeipa get this strange limit in 49629 users and why? How to handle this? so projected size of LDAP DB is around 15 millons users I tried to workaround this with python ldap-3 library in hope it make some more low-level requests without any limits, but via python script i have this limit too, so its totally global for all, UI, API and python API... So how to remove this strange limit?

1 1

Certificate problem
by Yavor Marinov 12 Jun '24

12 Jun '24

Hello all, I've tried to look over the list for the problem I have, but it seems I can't find anything related. We are using FreeIPA 4.11 on Alma9 with Letsencrypt certificates. Until now I didn't had issues renewing certificates (using https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa-letsencrypt for renewing certificates) but since last night's renewal I can't get in to login into webui and can't enroll any new resources. The error i got from webui is standart Login failed due to an unknown reason and there are no errors in pki-tomcat. In apache's error logs the following error is produced: [Wed Jun 12 13:58:11.298021 2024] [wsgi:error] [pid 211427:tid 211669] [remote 91.239.13.253:34362] ipa: INFO: 401 Unauthorized: HTTPSConnectionPool(host='login.example.net', port=443): Max retries exceeded with url: /ipa/session/cookie (Caused by SSLError(SSLCertVerificationError(1, '[SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: unable to get local issuer certificate (_ssl.c:1129)'))) Trying with curl to reach some of the certificates with curl https://login.example.net:443/ca/rest/certs/1 returns error "unable to get local issuer certificate". However, reaching the IPA webui using Chrome doesn't return an error "ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER" but FireFox reports that the certificate is unknown. I know this is a trivial problem, but since I'm using letsencrypt I'm a bit worried since this is the first time having issues with certificates. The same problem is present on our replica. Any help would be much appreciated.

2 4

ipa-server upgrades not possible on RHEL 9 - samba-client-libs outdated
by Sam Morris 12 Jun '24

12 Jun '24

Hi folks. On a RHEL 9 system I'm getting: # dnf upgrade Updating Subscription Management repositories. Last metadata expiration check: 3:01:24 ago on Tue Jun 11 05:37:06 2024. Error: Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package ipa-server-4.11.0-10.el9_4.x86_64 - nothing provides samba-client-libs >= 4.19.4-105.el9_4 needed by ipa-server-4.11.0-15.el9_4.x86_64 from rhel-9-for-x86_64-appstream-rpms Problem 2: [...] etc. Currently only the older version of samba-client-libs is available: # dnf list samba-client-libs Not root, Subscription Management repositories not updated Last metadata expiration check: 8:22:10 ago on Tue Jun 11 00:17:42 2024. Installed Packages samba-client-libs.x86_64 4.19.4-104.el9 @rhel-9-for-x86_64-baseos-rpms Available Packages samba-client-libs.i686 4.19.4-104.el9 rhel-9-for-x86_64-baseos-rpms I guess this will fix itself soon but I wanted to check on the chance that I've managed to break something locally... Thanks -- Sam Morris <https://robots.org.uk/> PGP: rsa4096/CAAA AA1A CA69 A83A 892B 1855 D20B 4202 5CDA 27B9

2 2

Fedora 40/FreeIPA 4.12
by Jochen Kellner 10 Jun '24

10 Jun '24

Hi, I've re-installed my test system with Fedora 40. ipa-healthcheck says: { "source": "ipahealthcheck.ipa.files", "check": "TomcatFileCheck", "result": "WARNING", "uuid": "0cad1a21-d450-4c68-845f-e72a640af360", "when": "20240610020014Z", "duration": "0.000986", "kw": { "key": "_var_lib_pki_pki-tomcat_conf_ca_CS.cfg_mode", "path": "/var/lib/pki/pki-tomcat/conf/ca/CS.cfg", "type": "mode", "expected": "0660", "got": "0664", "msg": "Permissions of /var/lib/pki/pki-tomcat/conf/ca/CS.cfg are too permissive: 0664 and should be 0660" } }, Otherwise the system seems to run fine. Might be a packaging problem... Jochen -- This space is intentionally left blank.

2 2

FreeIPA 4.12.1
by Antonio Torres 10 Jun '24

10 Jun '24

The FreeIPA team would like to announce FreeIPA 4.12.1 release! It can be downloaded from http://www.freeipa.org/page/Downloads. Builds for Fedora distributions will be available from the official repository soon. Full release notes are available at: https://www.freeipa.org/release-notes/4-12-1.html

1 0

FreeIPA 4.11.2
by Antonio Torres 10 Jun '24

10 Jun '24

The FreeIPA team would like to announce FreeIPA 4.11.2 release! It can be downloaded from http://www.freeipa.org/page/Downloads. Builds for Fedora distributions will be available from the official repository soon. Full release notes are available at: https://www.freeipa.org/release-notes/4-11-2.html

1 0

[SSSD] Announcing SSSD 2.10.0-beta1
by Pavel Březina 07 Jun '24

07 Jun '24

# SSSD 2.10.0-beta1 The SSSD team is announcing the release of version 2.10.0-beta1 of the System Security Services Daemon. The tarball can be downloaded from: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/releases/tag/2.10.0-beta1 See the full release notes at: https://sssd.io/release-notes/sssd-2.10.0-beta1.html RPM packages will be made available for Fedora shortly. ## Feedback Please provide comments, bugs and other feedback via the sssd-devel or sssd-users mailing lists: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users # SSSD 2.10-beta1 Release Notes ## Highlights ### General information * **IMPORTANT note for downstream maintainers!** This release features significant improvements of "running with less privileges (under unprivileged service user)" feature. There is still a `./configure` option `--with-sssd-user=` available that allows downstream package maintainers to choose if support of non-root service user should be built. In case such support is built, a preferred way to configure service user is simply by starting SSSD under this user; for example, using `User=/Group=` options of systemd sssd.service file. Upstream defaults are to build `--with-sssd-user=sssd` and to install systemd service with `User=/Group=sssd`. In this case, only several helper processes - `ldap_child`, `krb5_child` and `selinux_child` - are executed with elevated capabilities (that are now granted using fine grained file capabilities instead of SUID bit). All other SSSD components run without any capabilities. In this scenario it's still possible to re-configure SSSD to run under `root` (if needed for some reason): besides changing `User/Group=` options, some other tweaks of systemd service files are required. A legacy method to configure a service user - sssd.conf `user` option - is now deprecated and its support isn’t built by default. It can be enabled using `--with-conf-service-user-support` `./configure` option if needed (for example, due to backward compatibility requirements of stable releases). Further, no matter if SSSD is built `--with-sssd-user=sssd` or `--with-sssd-user=root`, when it's configured to run under `root` (in both cases) it still runs without capabilities, the same way as when it's configured to run under `sssd` user. The only difference is from the DAC perspective. Important note: owner of `/etc/sssd/sssd.conf` file (and snippets) should match the user configured to start SSSD service. Upstream spec file changes ownership of existing `sssd.conf` to `sssd` during package installation for seamless upgrades. Additionally, this release fixes a large number of issues with "socket activation of responders" feature, making it operable out-of-the-box when the package is built `--with-sssd-user=sssd`. Please take a note, that user configured to run main sssd.service and socket activated responders (if used) should match (i.e. if sssd.service is re-configured from upstream defaults to `root` then responders services also should be re-configured). Downstream package maintainers are advised to carefully inspect changes in `contrib/sssd.spec.in`, `src/sysv/systemd/*` and `./configure` options that this release brings! * sssctl `cache-upgrade` command was removed. SSSD performs automatic upgrades at startup when needed. * Support of `enumeration` feature (i.e. ability to list all users/groups using `getent passwd/group` without argument) for AD/IPA providers is deprecated and might be removed in further releases. Those who are interested to keep using it awhile should configure its build explicitly using `--with-extended-enumeration-support` ./configure option. ### New features * The new tool `sss_ssh_knownhosts` can be used with ssh's KnownHostsCommand configuration option to retrieve the host's public keys from a remote server (FreeIPA, LDAP, etc.). This new tool, which is more reliable, replaces `sss_ssh_knownhostsproxy`. Please consider switching to using the new tool as the old one will be removed. ### Packaging changes * Building SSSD now unconditionally requires availability of `ucred`/ `SO_PEERCRED` to enforce certain security checks at runtime (see `man 7 unix` for details). * SSSD now requires `libini` not older than v1.3 * Explicit `--with-semanage` ./configure switch was removed, going forward `--with-selinux` includes this. ### Configuration changes * Default `ldap_id_use_start_tls` value changed from `false` to `true` for improved security. * Added a `ldap_use_ppolicy` option for backends with broken ppolicy extension handling. * Obsolete `config_file_version` option was removed.

1 1

ipa host-add one time password validity period?
by Masanari Iida 06 Jun '24

06 Jun '24

" ipa host-add hostname -random " create a random one time password for this system. My question is, is there any expiring date for this random one time password? Let's say, if the random password expires in 7 days, I should mention my co-worker to let them add the hosts within that period. So far, I don't see such limitation online manual "Add Hosts to IPA" section. Just I want to double check this with developer. Masa

2 2

Is there a way to change a private group to a normal user group?
by Djerk Geurts 06 Jun '24

06 Jun '24

Hi all, Working on NFS access for local system accounts I found that one NFS client was only able to use a primary group to gain access to an NFS share via group privileges, and not a secondary group. But now, I’ve run into an issue where I need to grant others access to the same files, and their use of secondary group membership isn’t a problem. So now I’m considering if I can change the private group to a normal group and still have it as the primary group for the system account. I don’t want to have to change the group ownership of 10TB of files and folders again as this takes a long time. So the gid must stay ideally stay the same. Can I: Change the group type, so it shows up in the IPA GUI and add another group to it. Delete the private group and recreate it as a normal group with the same gid and name? Or am I screwed and need to remove the user and group and recreate them from scratch? Thanks, Djerk Geurts

2 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

FreeIPA-users June 2024