From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8551B1FF15C
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:51:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A61EF4B05;
Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:51:16 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:50:42 +0100
Message-Id: <D8K44D12DN35.N2ED1JKP8ROD@proxmox.com>
To: "Stefan Hanreich" <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
From: "Christoph Heiss" <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1
References: <20250318153854.303676-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20250318153854.303676-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.028 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox-ve-rs 1/1] partial fix #6226:
macros: add LDAP_UDP macro
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On Tue Mar 18, 2025 at 4:38 PM CET, Stefan Hanreich wrote:
> Add LDAP_UDP macro to the firewall to support LDAP implementations
> that use UDP as well, such as Windows AD [1]
>
> [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/de-de/troubleshoot/windows-server/active-directory/config-firewall-for-ad-domains-and-trusts
> [..]
> --- a/proxmox-ve-config/resources/macros.json
> +++ b/proxmox-ve-config/resources/macros.json
> @@ -377,6 +377,15 @@
> ],
> "desc": "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol traffic"
> },
> + "LDAP_UDP": {
What about naming it "AD" instead and including both the TCP and UDP
rule instead? I.e. making it completely separate from the "normal" LDAP
rule.
Naming it "LDAP_UDP" could be confusing to users, in that it might be
required for actual, compliant LDAP servers as well, not just AD.
> + "code": [
> + {
> + "dport": "389",
> + "proto": "udp"
> + }
> + ],
> + "desc": "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol traffic via UDP"
> + },
> "LDAPS": {
> "code": [
> {
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel