[tac_plus] Re: Issue with Cisco switch authentication against Microsoft Active Directory
john heasley
heas at shrubbery.net
Mon Nov 23 21:16:11 UTC 2009
Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:12:53PM -0600, Hailu Meng:
> I just saw some posts saying pam_krb winbind could be needed to get pam work
> against active directory. Is this true? The post I was following actually is
> for a LDAP server not Active Directory.
i dont know; each pam implementation seems to be [at least] slightly
different. seems silly to need kerberos for ldap.
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Hailu Meng <hailumeng at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I need put my pam configuration here:
> >
> > I followed this post
> > http://www.shrubbery.net/pipermail/tac_plus/2009-January/000332.html to
> > configure my pam module:
> >
> > /etc/pam.d/tacacs
> >
> > auth include system-auth
> > account required pam_nologin.so
> > account include system-auth
> > password include system-auth
> > session optional pam_keyinit.so force revoke
> > session include system-auth
> > session required pam_loginuid.so
> >
> > /etc/pam.d/system-auth
> > #%PAM-1.0
> > # This file is auto-generated.
> > # User changes will be destroyed the next time authconfig is run.
> > auth required pam_env.so
> > auth sufficient pam_unix.so nullok try_first_pass
> > auth requisite pam_succeed_if.so uid >= 500 quiet
> > auth sufficient pam_ldap.so use_first_pass
> > auth required pam_deny.so
> >
> > account required pam_unix.so broken_shadow
> > account sufficient pam_succeed_if.so uid < 500 quiet
> >
> > account [default=bad success=ok user_unknown=ignore] pam_ldap.so
> > account required pam_permit.so
> >
> > password requisite pam_cracklib.so try_first_pass retry=3
> > password sufficient pam_unix.so md5 shadow nullok try_first_pass
> > use_authtok
> > password sufficient pam_ldap.so use_authtok
> > password required pam_deny.so
> >
> > session optional pam_keyinit.so revoke
> > session required pam_limits.so
> > session [success=1 default=ignore] pam_succeed_if.so service in crond
> > quiet use_uid
> > session required pam_unix.so
> > session optional pam_ldap.so
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Hailu Meng <hailumeng at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> You mean issue commands like tac_plus -C /etct/tac_plus.conf -L -p 49 -d
> >> 16 -d 256 -g ? -d 16 -d 256 side by side? It didn't make any change. I got
> >> same log info. By the way, I also saw the log info in /var/log/message:
> >> Nov 23 14:24:25 NMS tac_plus[3676]: Reading config
> >> Nov 23 14:24:25 NMS tac_plus[3676]: Version F4.0.4.19 Initialized 1
> >> Nov 23 14:24:29 NMS tac_plus[3676]: connect from 10.1.69.89 [10.1.69.89]
> >> Nov 23 14:24:37 NMS tac_plus[3676]: login query for 'myuser' tty0 from
> >> 10.1.69.89 rejected
> >> Nov 23 14:24:37 NMS tac_plus[3676]: login failure: myuser 10.1.69.89
> >> (10.1.69.89) tty0
> >>
> >> Do we have option to see the log about PAM? I haven't found where it is.
> >> if we can check the log of PAM, then we could find something useful. Right
> >> now the log of tac_plus didn't tell too much about why login got failure.
add -d 32. -d x -d y ... will be logically OR'd together.
> >> Lou
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM, john heasley <heas at shrubbery.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:43:00PM -0600, Hailu Meng:
> >>> > Thanks John for helping me check this issue.
> >>> >
> >>> > I just run tac_plus -C /path/to/tac_plus.conf -L -p 49 -d256 -g to see
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>> try -d 16 -d 256. which i think will log the pwd that pam received from
> >>> the device. make its correct. the logs below do appear to be a
> >>> reject/fail
> >>> returned from pam.
> >>>
> >>> > log in stdout and in log file. I can't see any suspicious log
> >>> information
> >>> > here. I paste the log below:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:22 2009 [3393]: Waiting for packet
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: Read AUTHEN/CONT size=23
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: PACKET: key=mykey
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: version 192 (0xc0), type 1, seq no 5,
> >>> flags
> >>> > 0x1
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: session_id 3295176910 (0xc46868ce),
> >>> Data
> >>> > length
> >>> > 11 (0xb)
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: End header
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: type=AUTHEN/CONT
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: user_msg_len 6 (0x6), user_data_len 0
> >>> (0x0)
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: flags=0x0
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: User msg:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: myusername
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: User data:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: End packet
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: choose_authen chose default_fn
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: Calling authentication function
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: Writing AUTHEN/GETPASS size=28
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: PACKET: key=mykey
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: version 192 (0xc0), type 1, seq no 6,
> >>> flags
> >>> > 0x1
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: session_id 3295176910 (0xc46868ce),
> >>> Data
> >>> > length
> >>> > 16 (0x10)
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: End header
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: type=AUTHEN status=5 (AUTHEN/GETPASS)
> >>> > flags=0x1
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: msg_len=10, data_len=0
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: msg:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: Password:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: data:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: End packet
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:27 2009 [3393]: Waiting for packet
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: Read AUTHEN/CONT size=30
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: PACKET: key=mykey
> >>>
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: version 192 (0xc0), type 1, seq no 7,
> >>> flags
> >>> > 0x1
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: session_id 3295176910 (0xc46868ce),
> >>> Data
> >>> > length
> >>> > 18 (0x12)
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: End header
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: type=AUTHEN/CONT
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: user_msg_len 13 (0xd), user_data_len 0
> >>> > (0x0)
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: flags=0x0
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: User msg:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: mypassword
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: User data:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:34 2009 [3393]: End packet
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: login query for 'myusername' tty0 from
> >>> > 10.1.69.89 r
> >>> > ejected
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: login failure: myusername 10.1.69.89
> >>> > (10.1.69.89) t
> >>> > ty0
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: Writing AUTHEN/FAIL size=18
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: PACKET: key=mykey
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: version 192 (0xc0), type 1, seq no 8,
> >>> flags
> >>> > 0x1
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: session_id 3295176910 (0xc46868ce),
> >>> Data
> >>> > length
> >>> > 6 (0x6)
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: End header
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: type=AUTHEN status=2 (AUTHEN/FAIL)
> >>> > flags=0x0
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: msg_len=0, data_len=0
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: msg:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: data:
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: End packet
> >>> > Sat Nov 21 22:28:36 2009 [3393]: 10.1.69.89: disconnect
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM, john heasley <heas at shrubbery.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:12:58PM -0600, Hailu Meng:
> >>> > > > Hi Adam,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > If the ldapsearch -D "" -w "" runs successfully, what do we suppose
> >>> to
> >>> > > get
> >>> > > > from the output? I just got all of the user information in that
> >>> group.
> >>> > > Does
> >>> > > > that means my password and username got authenticated successfully
> >>> > > against
> >>> > > > AD?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > This thing drives me crazy. I need solve it through this week
> >>> before the
> >>> > > > holiday...
> >>> > >
> >>> > > i havent followed this thread, as i know nearly zero about ldap.
> >>> but,
> >>> > > have you enabled authentication debugging in the tacacas daemon and
> >>> > > checked the logs to determine what is coming back from pam? it very
> >>> > > well may be that the ldap client is working just fine, but there is a
> >>> > > pam module bug or a bug in the tacplus daemon or that your device
> >>> > > simply doesnt like something about the replies.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Thanks a lot for the help.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Lou
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Hailu Meng <hailumeng at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Still no clue how to turn on the log. binding seems good. See my
> >>> > > findings
> >>> > > > > below. Thanks a lot.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, adam <prozaconstilts at gmail.com>
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >> Hailu Meng wrote:
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>> Adam,
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>> I tried the su - "userid" in my tacacs+ server but I don't have
> >>> that
> >>> > > > >>> userid in CentOS. So the CentOS just don't want me log in. I
> >>> think
> >>> > > this will
> >>> > > > >>> not ask tacacs server to authenticate against AD.
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> You shouldn't need to have to define the user in CentOS, that's
> >>> the
> >>> > > point
> >>> > > > >> of using ldap for authentication. The user is defined in ldap,
> >>> not in
> >>> > > > >> CentOS. Now that I think about it, su - <user> probably wouldn't
> >>> work
> >>> > > > >> anyway, as AD doesn't by default have the data needed by a linux
> >>> box
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > >> allow login...but see below for more options.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>> Is there any other way to test ldap authentication against AD
> >>> with
> >>> > > the
> >>> > > > >>> userid in AD? I tried ldapsearch. It did find my user id
> >>> without
> >>> > > problem.
> >>> > > > >>> But I haven't found any option to try with password and
> >>> authenticate
> >>> > > against
> >>> > > > >>> AD.
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> Try using -D:
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> from `man ldapsearch`:
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> -D binddn
> >>> > > > >> Use the Distinguished Name binddn to bind to the LDAP
> >>> directory.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> so -D cn=username,ou=my_ou,dc=my_dc should let you try to
> >>> authenticate
> >>> > > > >> using whatever user you want to define. Just check and double
> >>> check
> >>> > > you get
> >>> > > > >> the right path in that dn.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> I tried -D " cn=username,ou=my_ou,dc=my_dc " but it just
> >>> returned lots
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > > > users' information. It means successful?
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >> Do you have ldap server setup or only the openldap library and
> >>> > > openldap
> >>> > > > >>> client? I don't understand why the log is not turned on. There
> >>> must
> >>> > > be some
> >>> > > > >>> debugging info in the log which can help solve this issue.
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> only the libs and client. You should not need the server. In the
> >>> > > > >> ldapsearch, you can use -d <integer> to get debugging info for
> >>> that
> >>> > > search.
> >>> > > > >> As before, higher number = more debug
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> If the user can authenticate, does ethereal capture some
> >>> packets
> >>> > > about
> >>> > > > >>> password verification? Right now I only see the packets when
> >>> ldap
> >>> > > search for
> >>> > > > >>> my user id and gets results back from AD.
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> Ethereal should catch all data flowing between the client and
> >>> server.
> >>> > > If
> >>> > > > >> you can search out the user in your AD right now, then one of
> >>> two
> >>> > > things is
> >>> > > > >> happening:
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> 1. You are performing anonymous searches. In this case, no
> >>> username
> >>> > > and pw
> >>> > > > >> is provided, and your AD is happy to hand over info to anyone
> >>> who asks
> >>> > > for
> >>> > > > >> it. If this is the case, you will _not_ see authentication
> >>> > > information. The
> >>> > > > >> following MS KB article should probably help you determine on
> >>> your AD
> >>> > > if
> >>> > > > >> anonymous queries are allowed:
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320528
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> It has exact instructions for how to get it going, but you can
> >>> follow
> >>> > > > >> along with it to check your current settings without making any
> >>> > > changes.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > I checked our setting. Permission type for normal user is "Read &
> >>> > > Execute".
> >>> > > > > I click edit to check the detail about permission. I think it
> >>> only
> >>> > > allow the
> >>> > > > > user to read the attributes, permission something and can't
> >>> modify the
> >>> > > > > AD.There is "Everyone" setting is also set as "Read & Execute".
> >>> By the
> >>> > > way,
> >>> > > > > the AD is Win2003 R2.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> 2. Authentication is happening. It will be the _very_ first
> >>> thing the
> >>> > > > >> client and server perform, after basic connection establishment.
> >>> Look
> >>> > > for it
> >>> > > > >> at the very beginning of a dump.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> Also, it's a bit overkill, but the following article is
> >>> extremely
> >>> > > > >> informative about all the different ways you can plug linux into
> >>> AD
> >>> > > for
> >>> > > > >> authentication. It might offer some hints...
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>> Maybe I need dig into ldap.conf more. If you have any idea, let
> >>> me
> >>> > > know.
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>> Thank you very much.
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>> Lou
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > -------------- next part --------------
> >>> > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>> > > > URL:
> >>> > >
> >>> http://www.shrubbery.net/pipermail/tac_plus/attachments/20091123/bba3d7fb/attachment.html
> >>> > > > _______________________________________________
> >>> > > > tac_plus mailing list
> >>> > > > tac_plus at shrubbery.net
> >>> > > > http://www.shrubbery.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/tac_plus
> >>> > >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
More information about the tac_plus
mailing list