Slashdot Mirror
"Seamless" Integration of Mac OS X w/ Active Directory
eexlebots asks: "I work for a small college which has a few Mac OS X 10.2 machines and a fairly standard Active Directory setup. Actual deployment of these clients rides on getting them to authenticate at login to our Active Directory server. Apple has stated that this is possible (easy! seamless!) with Jaguar without the use of an additional Mac OS X server, but I have found the case to be quite different. It is possible, but not without a good deal of nightmarish configuration issues. Documentation? HA! No sign of it anywhere on Apple's site. I'm not alone: at macwindows.com I found a good many people who think that Apple's claims of seamless Windows Network integration to be a bad joke and nothing more. I was wondering who else out there is having this problem, and what they have done to solve it."
Active desktop and Active directory are *slightly* different...
It isn't exactly in Microsoft's best interest to make this easy for them is it?
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
Get rid of that stupid AD and install a real catalogue system like LDAP or NDS. Active Directory is made for Windows and nothing but windows. Making anything else to work with it is very hard and not worth it. What on earth do you need from AD that cannot be solved otherwise? If its just a matter of a few machines there shoudnt be any significant gain in ease of admin in AD. If there are plenty then you should install a MAC server. Microsoft does not and will never play nice with anything else but Microsoft.
HTTP/1.1 400
Step 1: plug into the network
Step 2: login using AD credentials
Step 3: There's no step 3! There's no step 3!
Not really. Apple has been partners with M$ for quite a while now. ANd you do know the best way to win users over is to make it easy to incorporate the new into the old.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I'm stating this at a very high-level perspective, but I know Samba is an actual component of OS X Server, and it is known to compile and install on OS X perfectly.
:)
So why not use Samba for integration to Active Directory? I'm not perfectly clear on the details of doing so, but I'm pretty sure you can use Kerberos to hook up to an AD domain, and go from there.
Any reason not to try? After all, Unix folk are generally pretty adamant about not reinventing the wheel
-brain
Active Directory is Microsoft's enterprise X.500-like security and authentication scheme. You set it up on a network of Windows servers and the clients all authenticate with those. Active Desktop is putting a webpage on your desktop.
Have you tried this?
I'm not sure what active directory is but I do know that using Jaguar, my machine can browse my windows network and connect to any shared folders very easily.
I also have it sharing folders out to the windows machines though it doesn't give out a listing of what's shared (probably for security reasons). You have to tell it what username, password and share you want to access.
What exactly are you trying to do?
Most likely, the configuration issues are with configuring the AD with the proper schema. When the AD is properly set up, then all you have to do is go into the Open Directory Assistant and create an LDAP service that is configured to use the Active Directory preset. Yes, it's a preset and so there is little or configuration on the OS X side. Once the LDAP service is created, then you select it as an authentication service (in the same utility) and you are done.
Apparently not. By entering "Active Directory under OS X" the very first entry is a PDF by Apple with instructions on page 35 on how to setup clients to authenticate to the active directory domain controller.
Here is the link for the uniniated:
MacOSXwithActiveDirectory.pdf
All they lose out on, is the OS License. Which when purchased from a Dell, et al, isn't that significant. When a Mac gets roped into the AD network seamlessly, they still get revenue from a copy of Office so the user can share docs with other users (LOTS more profitable than Windows). Plus a few more CAL's as well, for the file server(s) as well as the exchange server(s). All in all, it's still a good revenue stream for MS.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Just because OS X supports LDAP for authentication does not mean there will be seamless integration with Active Directory.
Active Directory (at least the MS implementation) is like a network-level "registry". It holds everything from integrated DNS records, to DHCP server authorization, users, permissions, replication controls and information....you get the idea.
To participate in most of this, you need to have client side stuff that can take advantage of all of this. OK, you get samba authentication without needing LDAP support on OS X, but who cares...that isn't enough for "seemless" integration.
Can you add users to OS X and have them appear in Active directory?....I don't think so.
Can you get your DHCP server (on OS X) to authenticate itself in Active Directory?...probably not.
Can you get user lists and permissions to replicate into OS X's user list? Maybe...but i'm still not sure about that.
Lastly...can you get a user to log into OS X and have OS X process login scripts replicated to domain controllers? Doubtful...most of the windows login scripts don't apply to the Unix world.
I may be wrong on this stuff. My experience with OS X has been a handful of workstations connecting to a windows file server via samba. It seems that the platforms are too far apart to get this "seemless" integration.
It appears the best you can do is simple user authentication....it might be worth it if the OS X server can get it's user list from the Active Directory machines. Does anyone know if this is possible? I'd love it if a Linux distribution could do that so I don't have to maintain two sets of user lists.
-ted
Go to Google. Type "apple.com active.directory" in the search box, and mind the periods. The very first result is a PDF from Apple's site entitled "Integrating Mac OS X With Active Directory." (Just to be clear, that link is directly to the PDF, so don't click unless you're ready to download.) In it you can find step-by-step instructions for setting up both the clients (simple) and the server (complex, but only has to be done once).
Since you said in your submission, "Documentation? HA! No sign of it anywhere on Apple's site," it seems clear that you haven't read this document yet. Give it a try. As I wrote elsewhere, I don't have any Windows servers, but from reading the instructions, it looks like it will be very easy for you to set this up just the way you want it.
I write in my journal
It's in the Samba configuration. It's something like "OS Level" and it will be set to some number, like maybe 50.
This number is how MS machines determine who is the Primary Domain Controller, basically the one with the highest OS level gets it, unless things are specifically configured otherwise. IIRC, Windows NT 4 has an OS level in the low 30s. Newer versions of Windows have higher OS levels, and server versions have higher levels than workstation or desktop versions.
So, all you have to do is use SWAT, or otherwise edit smb.conf, and set your OS level to some low number, like 1.
This site is a good introduction with lots of useful tips. If you really need to know Samba, though, I highly recomend this book.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
What exactly is the difference between these?
/etc/passwd with the user's uid/gid/homedir (It IS possible to get around this with the "nolocal" option, but needless to say it only works for a limited subset of services), but that entry doesn't need a password set, just * (Which would disallow logins normally, in this case if pam_smb_auth clears the authentication, you can log in)
Or is AD just the authentication portion of SMB?
I know on RedHat systems, you can choose the pam_smb_auth PAM module to authenticate against a Windows domain controller. Pop in your domain and the server name, pam_smb_auth handles most of the rest. You still need a local entry in
I have this set up on a Linux box at work - At the moment I need to use adduser to create local accounts, but I don't need to give the users passwords - They use their current domain userid/pass.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My primary complaint against SMB is that it doesn't really work all that well. When I tried to look at the list of computers in Network Neighborhood, I often saw only a partial list (some computers that I knew were connected did not show up). The only way I could connect to these was by specifying their IP address. Other times, I could not access them at all (even though in some cases they could still access my machine!). I switched to Linux a while ago, and I have had similar results using SAMBA.
This leads me to believe that the fault for bad Windows Network performance lies not in the implementation (whether SMB on Windows, SAMBA on Linux, or the Apple implementation) but in the protocol itself.
I beg to differ about NDS on Windows ever being a problem.
I have no great love for Windows. Novell, I happen to like very much but it is cost prohibitive. But is NDS worth the money? Yes. Also, GroupWise is capable of driving Outlook properly, even better than my beloved OpenMail [RIP, now Samsung Contact - yeach, thanks Carly] was.
My experience since Novell 4.x (I've used it back in the bindery days as well) and NDS has been flawless. It supports DOS, WinALL, and anything else. It has native file sharing so it can appear as a Winderz box. The server is ugly as sin at the console, but it runs more reliably that one would ever imagine, I had several servers stay up for more than a year. The Novell client integration with Windows NT based operations systems is superior, supporting advanced network trashcans, robust undelete for idiots, and does interesting things like server side searches (as in, if you are looking for the word "cat" on a network file system, the server does the searching 'for you.'
Also, NDS is much more scaleable than ADS. It has the proper notion of root, it is possible to merge trunks together, if you've ever used ConsoleOne, you'll see more granularity on this directory and its objects than was ever dreamed possible, cleanly integrated and rather fast.
Is Novell run by intelligent business people? No. Are the products of incredible quality? Yes. Novell's image has been so heinously stained, with angry red color schemes, idiotic pictures of polyester clad fools running around on my console dancing or holding up red N's.
Novell needs to do only this: Change colors to blue or something, and rip out that licensing shit and start offering to replace ADS/Exchange with NDS/GroupWise for $100 bucks. All it costs them is a CD. It would cost Microsoft a lot of pain.
If you haven't given Novell a shot, please do,. You'll realize that the free stuff right now is primitive compared to NDS. Any other comments on good directory service implementations are welcome.
I just setup a Novell 6 server the other day to stay sharp with that stuff. Besides the fools in the marketing department over there, I was impressed with it. I would take a job working with Novell and Unix, but if someone wanted me to deal with Windows ADS or NT4 DS again, and not be open to Samba, I would probably not take the job or demand a premium.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
It sounds like your real problem is getting AD to play nice with LDAP clients. The reason that Microsoft clients integrate "seamlessly" with AD is that they use some funky proprietary directory protocol, whereas everything else (Linux, Mac, etc.) speaks straight LDAP. I've found that 10.2 has pretty darn good LDAP integration, but getting it to work with Microsoft takes some accomodation on the AD side.
Remember that Macs use open protocols and tools for their Windows integration. Samba is used for the SMB stuff and LDAP for directories. Any time you're using proprietary MS protocols, you're going to run into problems. You'll run into the same situation with Linux, Novell, or anything non-MS. If your mandate is to make the Macs behave exactly like Windows, then they're setting you up for failure
That being said, you can really help yourself out by getting a 10.2 server to act as a bridge. Apple's OpenLDAP is still fairly young, but it really simplifies AD integration. With your modest requirements, you probably use an old iMac. The server software for 10.2 server is pretty cheap with educational discounts ($250 for 10 clients, $500 for unlimited), and it doesn't require much of a box. I'm using an iMac server to get a 20 station lab on AD and it works pretty well. You get some really cool deployment and workstation management tools, too. ;)
I hear you about the documentation, though. I don't mind so much, because I like tinkering with things and Apple's stuff is fairly intuitive. However, when you're just starting out, Apple's "Why would you need a manual?" attitude gets pretty annoying.
This
Ehrm. Not only do I have Windows machines, I have an OS X box, and my workstation is Linux.
Now, the windows boxes DO have random crashes regarding the TCP/IP stacks (Exception 0E), but that has nothing to do with Netware/NDS.
Stop spreading FUD, I've run NDS for 5 years, and logging into the server is not an issue. Sure, there can be other issues (client-side caching of shared documents - umm turn it off), but nothing that is specific to NDS.
Plus, with NDS, you don't even need Netware. (Oh, and it's also LDAP v3, so we've used it for web app auths also)
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
If you ever look at the properties in a typical user's account in AD vs LDAP you will get the screaming heebeejeebies!!! :)
LDAP user = a paragraph or two of logically arranged and named fields.
AD user = a page and a half of garble!
There's a reason MS has an AD "connector for LDAP" product (for a small fee).
AD might technically have the same modes of communication as LDAP but that's like saying just because I can use the same phone to call my Aunt and that friendly guy in Nigeria that they can and should talk to each other. (Okay, bad analogy, but I thought iwas funny.
So, to summarise for anyone who hasn't had the pleasure of attempting to integrate AD and LDAP, they ain't even close to compatible Jack!!
Apple, in its attempts to get into more enterprise accounts, has not learned that system administrators require documentation ad nauseum. They wrote their documentation for AD in the old 10.1 Server AD/LDAP PDF and in their System Administrators guide for 10.2 Server much too simply.
Recently I worked with Apple to receive an Xserve for two tests--getting a Macintosh to authenticate by AD (which is an LDAP superset) from login, and to provide authentication on file shares from AD using the Connect to Server command, where the shares would be provided by the Xserve.
I had no success in getting anything to work with 10.1 Server. After getting 10.2 Server from Apple, we had luck in getting authentication for file shares working. Part of the problem involved how LDAPv3 (the main component in Apple's Open Directory) relates to the AD schema. I'm not an AD expert, but Apple has got a "not-invented-here" mindset here; the LDAP components don't match up with with sysadmins expect. I was unable to get the login authentication component working at all.
As a result, I couldn't recommend an Xserve for my customers, and stuck in Services For Macintosh, a component in Windows 2000 Server that provides the same authentications to file shares by AD without the Xserve acting as a middleman for file sharing. It's got its own issues, but at least it worked as advertised; it took us only 5 minutes to set this up on a working W2K server.
Apple MUST have the documentation and software working and tested before making claims. This is a completely unacceptable way to sell their wares, and is worsening an already bad reputation for many in IT.
Just so you know, Macintosh system integration is my business, so I feel quite justified in flaming Apple for such a bad implementation. It's not really their technology, but how they sold this currently-snake oil concept to Mac professionals.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Wow. Another RTFM post. Brilliant. So, I take it you read the actual Ask Slashdot question then, right? The part where he says he knows how to get it working, and wants to know if it has been this hard for everyone else to do so as well? Did ya read that part? Cause I don't think that ya did.
For reference:
"...It is possible, but not without a good deal of nightmarish configuration issues...I found a good many people who think that Apple's claims of seamless Windows Network integration to be a bad joke and nothing more." So that was the part where he says he knows how to do it. Now this is the exciting part... the ACTUAL question...
"...I was wondering who else out there is having this problem, and what they have done to solve it." Cool, huh? Reading story good! Reflex comments BAD! REFLEX BAD!
Now, you did find documentation on Apple's site so that's gotta be worth some points. +1 Informative to you. Of course, that's not really the point of his Ask Slashdot, so you get a +1 Moron because you can't read and a +3 Asshole because you've used this thread as a vehicle to vent your frustrations at the world. Your Karma is now -1 Idiot. Congratulations.
Now, for anyone else that feels inclined to add RTFM to this discussion, save your breath. We don't care. Post something useful, and if you're not willing to add your name to it, maybe that tells you a little bit about the message you're posting.
Thank god I'm not a moderator or my Dogma would crap on your Karma
Will do that. I think in the end, I think the benefits of few less win2k servers to maintain/buy is worth the client install.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
I work for a company that looked into it recently. We bought an XServe, read the docs, and when I tried to assemble it in a test environment (Fresh AD infrastructure, own address space, etc) I ran into problem after problem. Finally when all the people at the Apple Support Forums (http://discussions.info.apple.com/) we got an error. So I called apple support. Would they help? They said no. Would Apple Pro support help? They said no. They said "We can get you in touch with Apple Consulting Services to help you get it working."
WTF? I have to buy consulting? They won't even *help* you through it over the phone, they direct you to the discussion forums. Basically my point is that Apple won't even support vanilla test-only installs, let alone ones in production.
The way it basically works is that Apple's own LDAP flavor (OpenDirectory) only works with Apple clients. *But* you can make some additions to the Win2k/AD Schema (not that scary) and make it so Apple's OpenDirectory can read attributes (users and shares) from AD, letting AD users login locally to a mac. Great stuff, yet to see it work.
The documentation sends you all over the whitepaper, looking for info on how to do this and that, and leaves out crucial steps (enabling LDAPv2 in AD, for example, as well as enabling LDAPv2 write access).
I'm no apple basher, but at the very least they should stop saying it's easy.
Having worked on Active Directory interoperability in Linux along with giving a presentation at the recent CIFS conference on the topic, I can speak to this issue with a certain degree of confidence.
My understand of the OS X client is that it doesn't contain true Active Directory client support. Instead, it relies on the fact that most AD installations are in mixed-mode where they still accept old client logins. In fact, only the bleeding edge versions of Samba actually support true Active Directory client login as it erquires some pretty obscure protocols that only recently have been understood (LDAP over UDP and other various nonsense).
Chances are, your network is in native-mode. That would kill your chances of using the native OS X CIFS clients (although Samba should allow you to access network resources if you use a beta 3.0 version).
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
And, while I understand that having Apple say "its easy" makes you want to blame them, you really ought to blame MS or yourselves for purchasing MS technology.Believe me, if it were my choice, we wouldn't have a single Windows machine on our network, either server or client. But it's not my decision to make. Given the reality that I am in a Windows shop, I do my best to make things work right. And, so far, OS X clients only work marginally well. Users can manually mount NT shares using their AD auth, but we'd relly prefer to see login screens at bootup authing against the AD. And that's where the problem lies. I agree that the problem is probably M$, but what can I do?
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Apple haven't broken LDAP by modifying it. They are using OpenLDAP, which is published under an open source licence.
All they have done is provide a bridge and NetInfo schema such that current NetInfo account information can be published via LDAP directly from the NetInfo database. They're not the bad guys here.
i don't read slashdot anymore.
You will need 10.2.
/Applications/Utilities, select Directory access. Select LDAPv3, click Configure, drop down the show options button, hit 'new', type a friendly name for your AD server, slap in its name or IP, Select Active Directory from the LDAP Mappings, use SSL if you want, fart around with the other options if you need to, OK everything, go back to Directory Access, Select Custom Path from the Search Drop Down, hit 'add', select '/LDAPv3/Your Friendly name'.
Browse to
Slap back wallop, you should now be authenticating with an AD server, seamlessly it is. Works Good for me, I dont like AD, but I really dont care, it authenticates me thats all I need, keeps management happy too, they love spending that money!!!.
T
The Active Directory documentation for Jaguar Server is now integrated into the Mac OS X Server 10.2 Admin Guide; from http://www.apple.com/server/resources.html:
2 015
Active Directory for Mac OS X Server v10.1: Learn how to integrate Mac OS X Server v10.1 with Microsoft Active Directory. (v10.2 customer, refer to the Administrators Guide for Active Directory integration documentation.)
The Mac OS X Server 10.2 Admin Guide is available from:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=12
Particularly, see:
Chapter 2: Directory Services (p.65)
Using an Active Directory server (p.104)
I had a excellent Novell experience today. :)
.htaccess file, you can point it to the NDS directory instead, very cool indeed, it would look something like this.
.organization [.context.organization]
I just installed a demo of Netware 6 today, I was amazed by the number of programs coming with the server as default, damn. Just look at the web admninistration.
When talking NDS, I discovered that now that Novell runs PHP,MySQL,Perl there is a greater reason to run apache web servers on it.
And what was even better, you can now authenticate users against your NDS in apache. cool. Just like you would use a
-----
AuthType Basic
AuthName "Secure_Site"
AuthNDSTree TREE_NAME
AuthNDSContext
AuthNDSRequireSSL [on|off]
require valid-user
order allow,deny
allow from all
---
It was very cool to see my php/mysql applications running on a netware server, I didn't need to change anything in the code, I imported my SQL data into MySQL and it was running.
my sig
As a side note check out mod_auth_mysql - http://www.diegonet.com/support/mod_auth_mysql.sht ml
:)
to do user auth against mysql as an apache module, works like above.
There's also http://www.giuseppetanzilli.it/mod_auth_pgsql/
Novell is playing attention to the good stuff
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
DHCP authentication as you described is a Microsoft extension to the standard and is not a part of any RFC that I am aware of. In point of fact, no non-Microsoft DHCP server implements this protocol and as a result, any other device that wants to broadcast DHCP packets can do so. The DHCP server on Mac OS X is really just a slightly modified version of the ISC reference implementation of bootpd. By design, you can set up the DHCP server on Mac OS X to respond to directory services request packets but not other types, such as IP address allocation requests, so that Mac OS X machines can pick up directory services information via DHCP and still interoperate with existing DHCP servers.
And, as you pointed out, any other device plugged into the network that can broadcast DHCP can cause the same chaos. Mac OS X makes it so that regular users without admin privileges cannot turn on DHCP, either on Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server. Keep non-technical users as non-admin users and you will never have the problem of DHCP interference.
I guess what I want is Linux or OS X to act like an Active Directory DC....to do all the things that Microsoft's AD-DC's do.
This gets to the core of your problems -- you have a VERY Microsoft-centric view of the world. Forcing authentication against a Microsoft-specific non-standard server protocol just because that's the way Microsoft does it is a really poor way of getting interoperability. Other systems have other ways of handling directory services and security -- look at them in their native environments and work with them, don't treat every problem as a nail just because all you have right now is a hammer.
--Paul