From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <s.sterz@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C9AD9FA1 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:23:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6530431C26 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:23:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:23:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 724FB4490A for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:23:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1fba045e-659c-2e2c-1a89-2a097b8fd076@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:23:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20230626093916.701659-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <20230626093916.701659-5-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <364f9cdc-373e-8713-fed3-ac6ec7277a51@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <364f9cdc-373e-8713-fed3-ac6ec7277a51@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.048 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.09 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH widget-toolkit 4/4] window: ldap auth edit forbid specifying a bind_dn without a password X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 07:23:39 -0000 On 26.06.23 20:30, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 26/06/2023 um 11:39 schrieb Stefan Sterz: >> this commit enforces passwords when using an non-anonymous bind. >> hence, it removes the possibility of configuring unauthenticated binds >> and brings the gui in-line with the backend. >> > > nit: please don't base the commit subject tags strictly on file hierarchy, for > copying this over to the changelog the following would be IMO a bit nicer: > >> ldap realm edit: forbid specifying a bind_dn without a password > sorry, i'll try to keep that in mind. > More importantly, albeit just to be sure: this doesn't clashes with PVE or PMG as > it's either not used there, and/or would be already compatible anyway (like you > mentioned PVE in the cover letter)? so in pve you can configure this. however, it will fail as soon as the configuration is actually used [1] (e.g., for a sync). i'm already working on a patch that also make the gui enforce setting a password in such cases. pmg from what i can tell allows unauthenticated binds just like pbs did previously. [1]: https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-access-control.git;a=blob;f=src/PVE/Auth/LDAP.pm;h=fc82a17a#l219