[tac_plus] Re: Issue with Cisco switch authentication against Microsoft Active Directory
john heasley
heas at shrubbery.net
Tue Nov 24 16:24:19 UTC 2009
Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:11:57AM +0100, Jeroen Nijhof:
>
> 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.
i would not expect this to affect tacacs, unless you have something in your
pam config that requires it. ie: nsswitch.conf should control auth for the
host (eg: /sbin/login), tacacs is separate.
> >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