httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig McQueen <mcquee...@edsrd1.yzk.co.jp>
Subject Re: Multiple authentication sources
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:06:48 GMT
Thanks for your reply. Your question prompted me to check the docs 
again, and I see there is the AuthLDAPRemoteUserIsDN option. I hadn't 
realised that possibility before. I'll try it. Requiring our users to 
enter their username in FQD isn't going to work. But if 
AuthLDAPRemoteUserIsDN works in conjunction with the Subversion 
authorisation file mechanism, that will work (albeit with some effort to 
reformat our existing authorisation file and the custom web-based admin 
tool we have to modify it).

That would make options 3 and 4 feasible. Though option 4 has its own 
"other problem".

Regards,
Craig McQueen

Michele Mase' wrote:
> Does the option 3 work changing the username from the form 
> domain\username into username@domain (domain in fqd form i.e. 
> example.com <http://example.com>)?
> Regards Michele
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Craig McQueen 
> <mcqueen-c@edsrd1.yzk.co.jp <mailto:mcqueen-c@edsrd1.yzk.co.jp>> wrote:
>
>     My company (in Australia) has a working Apache server on its
>     Intranet -- incidentally, for serving Subversion. It's on Windows
>     2003 and it's set up for authentication using the SSPI module.
>     Currently Apache 2.0 but I want to upgrade to 2.2 to support the
>     latest Subversion. We are also using a Subversion authorisation
>     file that checks the username (provided by the authentication
>     mechanism) against path access controls. The usernames are
>     currently in the form LOCALDOMAIN\localuser.
>
>     It's a global company and we now want to allow remote branches to
>     access the server. That means we want to extend authentication
>     somehow. I'm looking at the options but coming across obstacles
>     for every one. Here's what I've found. Note, I'm only really
>     interested in options that will work for Apache 2.2, since version
>     2.2 is needed for any upgrade of Subversion. I'm testing on a
>     Windows XP PC running Apache 2.2.10. <http://2.2.10.>
>
>     Option 1: Create local-domain usernames for remote people
>     Not ideal due to security policy concerns.
>
>     Option 2: SSPI plus password file
>     "Just doesn't work". Apache 2.2 changed the way authentication
>     works. The SSPI module still works by itself in 2.2, but it
>     doesn't cooperate with other authentication methods (as far as I
>     can tell). Even though this reference says how it can be done:
>     http://tortoisesvn.net/docs/nightly/TortoiseSVN_en/help-onepage.html#tsvn-serversetup-apache-6
>     When I configure it as said, the SSPI authentication continues to
>     function but the password authentication never succeeds.
>
>     Option 3: LDAP plus password file
>     It works. However, the LDAP module doesn't have a concept of
>     "domains" so the usernames passed on to the Subversion file-based
>     authorisation are in plain form, without any "LOCALDOMAIN\"
>     prepended. This means that the authorisation file would need all
>     "LOCALDOMAIN\" removed. Note that the password file can have
>     usernames in the form e.g. REMOTEDOMAIN\remoteuser, so it is
>     possible to avoid duplicates between the two systems.
>
>     Option 4: LDAP lookup of LOCALDOMAIN plus LDAP lookup of
>     REMOTEDOMAIN (plus LDAP lookup of REMOTEDOMAIN2 etc)
>     It looks as though it should be possible. However, I can't get the
>     LDAP lookup of REMOTEDOMAIN to work (even by itself). It appears
>     to be related to the fact that the REMOTEDOMAIN LDAP directory has
>     Japanese characters in the "Base DN". I'm pretty sure the
>     httpd.conf file has the Japanese characters specified in proper
>     RFC 2255 format. So I think there is a problem in the LDAP
>     authentication module in properly sending the queries with UTF-8
>     content in the base DN. The error.log file says
>     "[ldap_search_ext_s() for user failed][No Such Object]" which
>     seems to indicate that the LDAP server isn't getting a valid base
>     DN. Note that as in option 3, there is no concept of "domains".
>     The authorisation file would not be able to systematically
>     distinguish between users from LOCALDOMAIN and users from
>     REMOTEDOMAIN. If we had identical usernames in the two domains, we
>     wouldn't be able to separate them for authorisation.
>
>     So, we're currently stuck on all our options, for a variety of
>     reasons. Any thoughts on this?
>
>     Regards,
>     Craig McQueen
>
>

Mime
View raw message