guacamole-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steffen Moser (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (GUACAMOLE-300) Support posixGroup in LDAP Authentication and Group-based Session Admission
Date Sun, 14 May 2017 17:44:04 GMT


Steffen Moser updated GUACAMOLE-300:
    Priority: Minor  (was: Major)

> Support posixGroup in LDAP Authentication and Group-based Session Admission
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: GUACAMOLE-300
>                 URL:
>             Project: Guacamole
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: guacamole-auth-ldap
>    Affects Versions: 0.9.12-incubating
>         Environment: Oracle Solaris, Apache Tomcat 8.5.9, OpenLDAP 2.4.30,
LDAP users are organized using the posixGroup scheme.
>            Reporter: Steffen Moser
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: features, patch
>             Fix For: 0.9.13-incubating
>         Attachments: LDAP-posixGroup-support_SteffenMoser-20170514.patch
> Recently, the auth-ldap module was extended by the ability to grant access to remote
terminal connections based on existing LDAP groups using the seeAlso attribute in Guacamole's
LDAP-based configuration settings. This is a great feature if you've to manage a lot of users
which are already organized in LDAP groups. It works well as long as the groups are of the
scheme groupOfNames. As we have decided for posixGroup (due to other tools' requirements),
we currently cannot use the feature and still have to list all users individually in the Guacamole
remote service configuration. While this could be scripted easily, it is still a work-around
which makes the administration work unnecessarily complex.
> A better solution would be to support both schemes, posixGroup and groupOfNames. 
> The attached patch will extend the user lookup code by the ability to search not only
through the groupOfNames but also through the posixGroup scheme. The piece of code seems to
work with both schemes in my tests successfully, I am not sure if there are any pitfalls when
just combining the possible results. Maybe introducing a configuration flag to choose whether
searching posixGroup or groupOfNames would be a better approach.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message