I want to know if slapd or ppolicy support translation ?
Context :
I'm using LDAP Directory as a centralized authentication system. I have a server running slapd and clients using nss-pam-ldap to connect to the server.
ppolicy module is active, and I have configured a custom password policy.
Clients and server are running under Centos 7. Clients have a user interface (Gnome).
My problem :
When a user modify its password, he will receive some messages if its new password doesn't respect my password policy. For example :
Password fails quality checking policy
Please make sure the password meets the complexity constraints
...
Is their a way to translate these messages ? Users of clients are french and not fluent in english.
Thanks in advance for your help !
Related
We have a client/server based application that is developed internally. Clients and server communicate over a TCP/IP connection with an application-specific protocol. The clients run on Windows and the server runs on Linux. All machines are in the same Active Directory/Kerberos domain/realm.
Currently, the user enters a username and password when they start the application. The server checks the username and password (authentication). Based on the username, the server also determines access to resources (authorization).
We want to add Single Sign-On (SSO) capabilities to the application. That is, we do not want the user to enter a username and password but we want to automatically logon as the current Windows user.
Of course, determining the current Windows user has to be done securely.
I have come up with the following setup:
I use SSPI (Negotiate) on Windows and GSSAPI on Linux.
When the client connects to the server, it uses AcquireCredentialsHandle (Negotiate) to get the credentials of the current Windows user.
The client uses InitializeSecurityContext (Negotiate) to generate a token based on these credentials.
The client sends the token to the server.
The server uses gss_acquire_cred() to get the credentials of the service. These are stored in a .keytab file.
The server receives the token from the client.
The server uses gss_accept_sec_context() to process the token. This call also returns the "source name", that is the current Windows user of the client.
The server uses the "source name" as the username: the server performs no additional authentication. The server still performs authorization.
This works but I do have some questions:
Is this secure? It should not be possible for the client to specify any other username than the Windows user of the client process. If a user has the credentials to create a process as another user (either legally or illegally) than this is allowed.
Should I perform additional checks to verify the username?
Are there alternative ways to achieve SSO in this setup? What are their pros and cons?
What you've described here is the correct way to authenticate the user. You should not have to worry about the user specifying a different name; that's what Kerberos takes care of for you.
If the client is able to obtain a service ticket, then they must have been able to authenticate against the KDC (Active Directory). The KDC creates a service ticket that includes the user's name, and encrypts it with the service's secret key.
The client would not be able to create a ticket for the server with a fake name, because it doesn't have the necessary key to encrypt the ticket.
Of course, this all assumes that you've set everything up correctly; the client should not have access to the service's keytab file for example, and the service should not have any principals in its key tab except its own.
There's a pretty detailed explanation of how it works here.
My web application is currently configured to connect to LDAP for user validation without relying on application server settings. In other words, my applications utilizes naming params to connect to LDAP hence its agnostic to application server ie. JBoss or Websphere.
Naming params used are as follows:
ldapURL
ldapPrincipal (bind user)
ldapCredentials (bind user's password)
ldapAuthentication
ldapSearchBase
The requirement now is to allow encrypted password in the ldapCredentials naming param. I have a way out of this situation is using custom SecurityLoginModule to encrypt password and supply it to application using naming param. My application would then decrypt it and then proceed with LDAP user validation. However, this results into additional application installation step.
So I was wondering if there is a way to use application server security domain (or some other way) to store the user credentials in secured fashion on application server and later application would pick it up at the time of user validation with LDAP without writing server specific code in my application. I know that we can use security domain to perform data source connection without writing server specific code. But if I do this for LDAP then I make server talk to LDAP which is not what am looking. Basically may still continue to use Federated users instead of LDAP.
Any decent application server (including JBoss and WebSphere) have server provided LDAP registry, which you can configure and use without any application specific code, and I'd strongly suggest to utilize that instead of writing your own ldap connection code.
Regarding encryption:
for WebSphere traditional, you can plug in your own class into server infrastructure to encrypt passwords see - Plug point for custom password encryption
for WebSphere Liberty - you have out of the box support for aes and hash.
for JBoss first link in Google showed me this How do I encrypt the bindCredential password in Wildfly, but maybe JBoss experts will guide you to something different.
I am trying to configure SSL communication for PostgreSQL.
I have a self-signed cerificate and I am following these instructions as specified in URL "http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/ssl-tcp.html".
When I configure SSL with a self signed certificate, as per the documentation the server will prompt for a (private key's password) password when it start-up.
My PostgreSQL is installed as a windows service.So, I want my service to start without any user intervention. Is there a way to configure private key password so that my database service starts up normally.
This would be a bad idea even if it were possible. You get very little additional security by putting both the key and the passphrase where the server process can see it. This adds a false sense of security and a greater chance of bad things happening.
If your tool won't give you a passphraseless key, use a different tool.
I am looking for a single sign on approach for an ODBC connection to a Postgres database.
The plan is to login to a web application and then use a a single sign on scheme such as oauth or CAS to automatically login to a client application.
The client application does not verify the credentials itself, but uses them via ODBC to connect to the Postgres database server. Unlike web applications we cannot use a single databaes user here, but need individual database accounts for security reasons.
In theory Postgres does support PAM and PAM supports both CAS and oauth. But I was not able to find any documentation on that. Especially the part of how to specify the token in ODBC is unclear to me.
With PAM auth, keep in mind that this is a broad field and books could be written about it. I do something similar to what you do though and can answer the part about ODBC. The following provides a walkthrough for a related service you may find helpful:
http://www.wikidsystems.com/support/wikid-support-center/how-to/how-to-secure-postgresql-using-two-factor-authentication-from-wikid
The big thing to remember is that with PAM the password provided is passed on to the PAM module, so you have to pass in the username and password. This gets sent to PAM as if the user was logging on to the system. Beyond that it's up to you to configure PAM appropriately for your service.
Does anyone have an experience or just thoughts about securing MQ TCP
communication channels using stunnel?
I am integration with third party S.W which has MQ support built in but it can not support SSL. So to have some kind of security over the TCP we would like to use stunnel. Does any one have any thoughts how to implement and any best practices
I haven't used stunnel so I'll leave that part of the answer to another responder. With regard to WMQ, keep in mind that this will provide you with data privacy and data integrity over the stunnel link but will not give you channel-level services such as WMQ authentication. True, you will have some level of authentication on the stunnel connection itself, but anyone with a TCP route to the QMgr that does not arrive via stunnel will also be able to start that channel.
Your requirement for security obviously includes data privacy. If it also includes authentication and authorization, you might need to use something like BlockIP2 (from http://mrmq.dk )to filter incoming connections on that channel by IP address to insure they arrive over the stunnel link. Of course, there is nothing to prevent someone at the remote end from specifying any channel name to connect to so if you secure one channel, you need to secure them all - i.e. make sure that SYSTEM.DEF.* and SYSTEM.AUTO.* channels are disabled or that they use SSL and/or an exit to authenticate the inbound connection.
Finally, be aware that if WMQ is configured to accept the ID presented by the client then the connection has full administrative access and that includes remote code execution. To prevent this you must configure all inbound channels (RCVR, RQSTR, CLUSRCVR and SVRCONN) that are not administrative with a low-privileged ID in the channel's MCAUSER. For any channels that are intended for administrators, authenticate these with SSL. (Hopefully your 3rd party SW is an application and not an administrative tool! Any WMQ admin tool must support SSL or else don't use it!)
So by all means use stunnel to secure this link, just be sure to secure the rest of the QMgr or else anyone who can legitimately connect (or even anonymous remote users if you leave MCAUSER blank and aren't using SSL and/or exits) will just bypass the security or disable it.
There's a copy of the IMPACT presentation Hardening WMQ Security at https://t-rob.net/links/ which explains all this in more detail.
Rob - I agree with you. For that only we have MQIPT. Which is much better. For STunnel for MQ i have sloved the problem.
Keys -U need a .pem key (From Key manager you can create .p12 and use open ssl to covert to .PEM).
Client Side: Download and install stunnel have followoling entries in the config file
cert = XXX.pem
client = yes
[MQ]
accept = 1415
connect = DestinationIP:1415
Server Side:
cert = xxx.pem
client = no
[MQ]
accept = 1415
connect = MQIP:1415
Once you do this all you have do is just call the amquputc with the Queue name.