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 D69FF9B8F
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF205283CA
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:43 +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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:43 +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 A47784415C
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <2377ca93-1c8a-cfb5-d82e-11e12b85c4df@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:38 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230626093916.701659-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
<20230626093916.701659-4-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
<1d1111f0-7255-1c7a-a15c-eadaebefe257@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d1111f0-7255-1c7a-a15c-eadaebefe257@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.050 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 -0.089 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 -
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 3/4] access: ldap check
connection on creation and change
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: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:40:43 -0000
On 26.06.23 14:36, Lukas Wagner wrote:
>
>
> On 6/26/23 11:39, Stefan Sterz wrote:
>> macro_rules! DOMAIN_PART_REGEX {
>> () => {
>> - r#"("[^"]+"|[^ ,+"/<>;=#][^,+"/<>;=]*[^ ,+"/<>;=]|[^
>> ,+"/<>;=#])"#
>> + r#"[^\s,\+=]+=(?:"[^"]+"|(?:\\[,\+=]|[^,\+=])+)"#
>> };
>> }
>>
>
> I wonder, if we validate any change of the LDAP parameters against the
> actual server anyway, is there
> even any value in validating DNs using a regex?
>
it could be dropped, i just assumed that having it there would help in
cases of obviously wrong dns and would save us the somewhat expensive
round-trip in such cases.
> If the config is manipulated via the API, a malformed DN will be
> rejected by the server, and in case
> the configuration file is edited directly, the regex also does not
> really help that much.