From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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.