[tac_plus] Re: Issue with Cisco switch authentication against Microsoft Active Directory
Tom Murch
tmurch at toniccomputers.com
Tue Nov 24 18:53:24 UTC 2009
I use tac_pls for cisco routers and pro curve switches. However I do not
authenticate against the AD as its only 4 people who need access so I keep
it all in a flat file.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Hailu Meng <hailumeng at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for pointing me another way. I haven't tried that yet. Not sure
> tac_plus will work with these functions or not. Have you tried to deploy
> this for cisco routers and switches?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Lou
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Tom Murch <tmurch at toniccomputers.com>wrote:
>
>> now im not an expert on this however I do run a samba server which pulls
>> the user names from my AD controller. Have you tried using winbind plus pam
>> for the AD authentication ??
>>
>> http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_&_Active_Directory I used this for
>> my samba install but you could get the idea of how winbind and Kerberos
>> would work. It might give you more luck
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Hailu Meng <hailumeng at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> I checked my tac_plus configuration for PAM module. the file
>>> /etc/pam.d/tac_plus. The current configuration is shown below:
>>> As you suggest I need put pam_ldap.so on the first row for every
>>> auth,account,password and session, right?
>>>
>>> *******************************************************************
>>> 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_localuser.so
>>> 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 Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, john heasley <heas at shrubbery.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:05:59AM -0600, Hailu Meng:
>>> > > It makes sense. nsswitch.conf should be for like local login not for
>>> > tacacs.
>>> > > Thanks John to point it out. I'm such a rookie to these things. Just
>>> > > followed some guides and combine them here. Need study more.
>>> >
>>> > well, it depends upon what modules you use in your tacacs PAM config;
>>> ie:
>>> > if you have something like 'require unix_account' (WAG) that requires
>>> that
>>> > the login exist in /etc/passwd (or more precisely get_pwent(3) or
>>> similar),
>>> > then /etc/nsswitch.conf might affect it. BUT, that means that for you,
>>> > 'require unix_account' is a misconfiguration of the tacacs PAM config.
>>> > that
>>> > is should be something like 'require ldap_account'.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Lou
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, john heasley <heas at shrubbery.net>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > 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
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> http://www.shrubbery.net/pipermail/tac_plus/attachments/20091124/a877fda6/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/20091124/82e96110/attachment.html
More information about the tac_plus
mailing list