[tac_plus] Re: Issue with Cisco switch authentication against Microsoft Active Directory
Jeroen Nijhof
jeroen at nijhofnet.nl
Tue Nov 24 10:11:57 UTC 2009
Hi Lou,
Yes, most server application's check if a user exist by looking up the
uid via nss before doing any authentication (i.e. sshd).
Regards,
Jeroen
Op 23/11/2009 schreef "Hailu Meng" <hailumeng at gmail.com>:
>Hi Jeroen,
>
>Thanks for helping. I modified the nssswitch.conf as below:
>passwd: files ldap
>shadow: files ldap
>group: files ldap
>
>And leave the other settings as default.
>
>the user attributes you are talking about are the attributes retrieving from
>AD? I do see the packets from AD server told my tacacs+ server the user
>attributes including homedir.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Lou
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Jeroen Nijhof <jeroen at nijhofnet.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Did you setup the nsswitch.conf as well on your tac_plus server?
>> Your tac_plus server needs to lookup the user attributes like homedir
>> etc, otherwise pam will fail.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeroen Nijhof
>>
>> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 15:28 -0600, Hailu Meng wrote:
>> > Ok. With -d 32, I got some more info about pam as red color log.
>> >
>> > There is "Unknown user" log info following the input of my user password.
>> > Feel confused since ldap is able to get user info from Active directory,
>> why
>> > it turns out "Unknown user" here.
>> >
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: Read AUTHEN/CONT size=23
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: PACKET: key=mykey
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: version 192 (0xc0), type 1, seq no 3,
>> flags
>> > 0x1
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: session_id 3197597252 (0xbe977644), Data
>> > length 11 (0xb)
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: End header
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: type=AUTHEN/CONT
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: user_msg_len 6 (0x6), user_data_len 0
>> (0x0)
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: flags=0x0
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: User msg:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: myusername
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: User data:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: End packet
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: choose_authen chose default_fn
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: Calling authentication function
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: pam_verify myusername
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: pam_tacacs received 1 pam_messages
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: Error 10.1.69.89 tty0:
>> PAM_PROMPT_ECHO_OFF
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: Writing AUTHEN/GETPASS size=28
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: PACKET: key=mykey
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: version 192 (0xc0), type 1, seq no 4,
>> flags
>> > 0x1
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: session_id 3197597252 (0xbe977644), Data
>> > length 16 (0x10)
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: End header
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: type=AUTHEN status=5 (AUTHEN/GETPASS)
>> > flags=0x1
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: msg_len=10, data_len=0
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: msg:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: Password:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: data:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: End packet
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:16 2009 [3806]: Waiting for packet
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: Read AUTHEN/CONT size=30
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: PACKET: key=mykey
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: version 192 (0xc0), type 1, seq no 5,
>> flags
>> > 0x1
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: session_id 3197597252 (0xbe977644), Data
>> > length 18 (0x12)
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: End header
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: type=AUTHEN/CONT
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: user_msg_len 13 (0xd), user_data_len 0
>> > (0x0)
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: flags=0x0
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: User msg:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: mypassword
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: User data:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:21 2009 [3806]: End packet
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: Unknown user
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: login query for 'myusername' tty0 from
>> > 10.1.69.89 rejected
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: login failure: myusername10.1.69.89
>> > (10.1.69.89) tty0
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: Writing AUTHEN/FAIL size=18
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: PACKET: key=mykey
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: version 192 (0xc0), type 1, seq no 6,
>> flags
>> > 0x1
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: session_id 3197597252 (0xbe977644), Data
>> > length 6 (0x6)
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: End header
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: type=AUTHEN status=2 (AUTHEN/FAIL)
>> > flags=0x0
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: msg_len=0, data_len=0
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: msg:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: data:
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: End packet
>> > Mon Nov 23 15:21:22 2009 [3806]: 10.1.69.89: disconnect
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:16 PM, john heasley <heas at shrubbery.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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.htmlto
>> > > > > 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
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL:
>> http://www.shrubbery.net/pipermail/tac_plus/attachments/20091123/4e65d4d2/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