1:45 a.m.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Spike White wrote:
James,
Really appreciate this detailed answer. Our on-site MS consultant will be
back next week, we'll have a big conversation next week.
BTW, you reminded me. Our AD team has a few AD DCs configured for this
proposed "future state" configuration -- which will break the use case #2
above. I tested our Linux sssd clients against it, as well as our older
(commercial product) clients. Both ran fine.
Lawrence, we *are* using the AD provider. internally, the AD provider is
doing GSSAPI-based SASL LDAP binding by default. We have a mix of RHEL6,7
and 8 boxes.
Hi,
James is right on spot. About the logged event when using GSSAPI my
colleague Thorsten also asked Microsoft in the Comments to
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/core-infrastructure-and-security/l...
There is also https://access.redhat.com/articles/4661861 which is
updated as soon as we have more information to share on this topic. One
of the latest updates here is about LDAPS and channel binding. Here
work on cyrus-sasl, openldap and MIT Kerberos was needed to make the
initial support all those components had work together as expected.
HTH
bye,
Sumit
Spike
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:55 PM James Ralston <ralston(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Spike White <spikewhitetx(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What cybersecurity is reporting off of is a particular event number
> > on its AD controllers. which is showing a connection to a LDAP
> > port.
> >
> > Is there another (better) event that it should be looking for
> > instead? I.e., it should be flagging a simple binding only to an
> > LDAP port.
>
> Unfortunately, there is not. A DC will log this event:
>
> The following client performed a SASL
> (Negotiate/Kerberos/NTLM/Digest) LDAP bind without requesting
> signing (integrity verification), or performed a simple bind over
> a clear text (non-SSL/TLS-encrypted) LDAP connection.
>
> …for both of these use cases:
>
> 1. An LDAP client uses GSSAPI (instead of GSS-SPNEGO), over a signed
> and sealed connection. No passwords are transmitted in clear text.
>
> 2. An LDAP client performs a simple bind over clear text (without
> sealing), which passes the bind password on the wire in clear text.
>
> If the DCs are configured as per Microsoft’s recommendations to secure
> LDAP traffic, use case #2 will break. But use case #1 will not.
> (Others in the big long thread I referenced in my previous message
> verified this.)
>
> At least to my knowledge, no one has figured out a way to sift through
> these events in the event log and determine which ones (if any) were
> generated by LDAP clients performing simple binds over clear text
> (which is undesirable) versus which ones were generated by LDAP
> clients using GSSAPI (instead of GSS-SPNEGO) over a sealed connection.
>
> Alas, Microsoft really should have used two different event types to
> distinguish these cases.
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-users mailing list -- sssd-users(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-users-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.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.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sssd-users@lists.fedorahoste...
>
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- sssd-users(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-users-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.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.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sssd-users@lists.fedorahoste...