[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Kerberos Feature Request
Use case 1: I need to control access to some information based on
ITAR (US Export) regulations. There is an existing LDAP attribute
listing whether each kerberos user is a "US Person".
KDC queries LDAP for each ticket request for that attribute
to see if it's true. If so put the info in the authorization data.
If not, or if LDAP is down, then leave it blank or set it false.
Services that care need to check it.
Use case 2: I'm required by Government regulation to use AES-256
encryption and CRYPTOcard hardware authentication with my windows
domain.
Set up a windows server. Set up the Kerberos server to
support those things and, in addition to query the appropriate
attributes from windows. Package the windows info appropriately and
include it for compatibility.
(Actually that may be a bad choice of Kerberos features.
Just pick something that MS doesn't support, but might be necessary
and easy to implement.)
Use case 3: I don't want to pay Microsoft all the fees for their server.
Tap into all the open information about how to set up the
windows information on an open LDAP server. Then proceed as in case
2. (Alternatively you could construct a PAC attribute ahead of time
on the LDAP side and just copy it into the ticket.)
Does this help? All three of these cases are at least close to
something I might actually have to do.
At 9:09 PM +0000 2/11/04, Tim Alsop wrote:
>Henry,
>
>I am now confused. Can you explain a 'use case' so that we can
>understand better why you would want to access MS account
>authorisation data stored in AD ?
>
>When referencing PAC data - this refers to the authorisation data
>stored inside Kerberos tickets. It sounds like you are not looking
>for a non-MS KDC to access this information or populate tickets with
>this information. So, what are you looking for ?
>
>Thanks, Tim.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henry B. Hotz [<mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov]
>Sent: 11 February 2004 21:03
>To: Tim Alsop; krbdev@mit.edu; heimdal-discuss@sics.se;
>darwin-development@lists.apple.com
>Cc: Dj Byrne
>Subject: RE: Kerberos Feature Request
>
>Multiple issues here. All good points, but one at a time:
>
>1) I am not requesting that anybody support Microsoft PAC for
>authorization. I am only requesting a general interface for
>inserting authorization data. As noted by Paul W. Nelson a complete
>solution also needs a good API for a client service to pull that
>authorization data out and inspect it (including parsing routines,
>etc.).
>
>2) I am requesting that the general interface be usable to
>distribute Microsoft PAC information, but only if other out-of-scope
>work is done to ensure that data is compatible with what Microsoft
>wants.
>
>3) The format of the PAC data is claimed to be proprietary and
>trade secret by Microsoft, and is subject to unilateral change by
>Microsoft. However Microsoft has built an infrastructure based on
>the PAC data. They aren't going to break backward compatibility if
>they don't have to.
>
>4) I note that organizations or people who have agreed to
>Microsoft's license on their description of the PAC data may have to
>abide by their agreements. However I've discussed the issue with
>JPL's legal department and I'm satisfied that *I* do not have to
>worry about that. The PAC format is readily available from multiple
>sources (see Google) and you don't have to agree to anything in
>order to get the information. Some fraction (I won't say how much)
>of Microsoft's legal claims on that information are based on the
>information being a "trade secret". It's no longer a secret, trade
>or otherwise.
>
>Usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV (or
>in the UK ;-).
>
>At 8:53 AM +0000 2/11/04, Tim Alsop wrote:
>>Henry,
>>
>>The PAC format is a Microsoft propriatory standard that they have
>>documented for vendors to use if they wish. If Microsoft decide to
> >change this, they can - they will then inform all MSDN members that
>>changes have been made.
>>
>>To implement your proposal - each KDC would have to construct that PAC
>>field and place this into the appropriate tickets. The KDC would also
>>have to manage principals such as ldap/host.name@REALM and
>>cifs/server.name@REALM. The additional service principals would need to
>>be created when a workstation becomes a member of a domain etc. I am
>>sure there are many other complex implications here. Effectively what
>>you are asking for is a non-MS kdc that is usable instead of MS AD for
>>workstation user logon ?
>>
>>One big issue, IMHO - What do you think Microsoft would think if it was
>>possible to use a UNIX server with an LDAP server instead of Active
>>Directory ? They would clearly not like this and they might decide to
>>change licensing of PAC data (or some other action) to stop the UNIX
>>KDC vendors from being able to offer this functionality ... Do you
>>agree ?
>>
>>Cheers, Tim.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Henry B. Hotz
>>[<<mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov><mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov]
>>Sent: 11 February 2004 01:29
>>To: Tim Alsop; krbdev@mit.edu; heimdal-discuss@sics.se;
>>darwin-development@lists.apple.com
>>Cc: Dj Byrne
>>Subject: RE: Kerberos Feature Request
>>
>>I want to enable that.
>>
>>I'm suggesting that it would be nice if there were a MIT-independent
>>and KTH-independent (and CyberSafe-independent ;-) mechanism that
>>allowed you to do that. Given a KDC-neutral enabling mechanism I
>>expect that an open-source project or 10 would spontaneously form to
>>bridge the gap between the conformant KDCs and the LDAP server of your
>>choice (including true blue AD).
>>
>>I'd be happy if the agreement/standard/whatever just said that you do
>>an ldap query for the "pac" attribute from the unique ID that matches
>>the principal, with the obvious REALM to DC= translation.
>>
>>Jeffrey Altman objects that I want an API, not an RFC, so IETF
>>shouldn't be involved, but I think the example I just gave would be an
>>RFC. I'm trying to limit my care-about's though. I just want a
>>general way to make use of the feature, which is currently pretty
>>inaccessible.
>>
>>At 11:41 PM +0000 2/10/04, Tim Alsop wrote:
>>>Henry,
>>>
>>>Are you proposing that the non-Microsoft KDC issues tickets containing
>>>PAC data and gets the group membership information from the Active
>>>Directory using LDAP ?
>>>
>>>Thanks, Tim.
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Henry B. Hotz
>>>[<<<mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov><mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov><<mailto:hotz@jpl>mailto:hotz@jpl.
>>>nasa.gov><mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>mailto:hotz@jpl.nasa.gov]
>>>Sent: 10 February 2004 18:27
>>>To: krbdev@mit.edu; Tim Alsop; heimdal-discuss@sics.se;
>>>darwin-development@lists.apple.com
>>>Cc: Dj Byrne
>>>Subject: Kerberos Feature Request
>>>
>>>I probably should send this to the IETF group, but I'm not on their
>>>mailing lists. (Apologies if the cross-posting causes problems.) It
>>>would be *nice* if all Kerberos distributions added this feature the
>>>same way.
>>>
>>>One of the famous things that Microsoft did in their AD Kerberos
>>>implementation is added authorization data to the (supposedly
>>>
>>>optional) PAC field that is necessary when using certain other
>>>Microsoft functionality. AFAIK all of the information added is also
>>>contained in the LDAP directory that AD also provides.
>>>
>>>I do not think it makes any sense for a (non-Microsoft) Kerberos
>>>server to directly maintain this data. Rather it should have a
>>>mechanism for acquiring the data from an external source, such as
>>>an LDAP directory.
>>>
>>>My request is that the Kerberos community agree on a standard external
>>>interface to get that data. If the interface itself were standardized
>>>then the work of connecting that interface to the appropriate AD
>>>attributes could be done independently of any Kerberos server, and
>>>could be updated as Microsoft updates their schema independent of
>>>Kerberos versions. It would also make the use of PAC data in
>>>non-Microsoft environments much easier to consider.
> >>
>>>--
>>>The opinions expressed in this message are mine, not those of Caltech,
>>>JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
>>>Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>>
>>
>>--
>>The opinions expressed in this message are mine, not those of Caltech,
>>JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
>>Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>
>
>--
>The opinions expressed in this message are mine, not those of
>Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
>Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
--
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu