Slashdot Mirror


A Standardized Open Source Network Authentication

JigSaw writes "The open source community has mastered many challenges and has been successful in numerous areas. However, there is one glaring weakness that needs to be remedied. Without progress in this area, open source in the enterprise will always play second fiddle to Microsoft, Novell, and other corporate computing entities."

12 of 27 comments (clear)

  1. OSS it's own worst enemy by MrIrwin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The problem is not just authorization. There is a tendency to plug for compatibility with the others rather than establish it's own standard.

    Imagine if, instead of saying "works as an NT server" you say "just install this little driver on windows and you get and open standards domain".

    I think most sysadmins would not mind having to install an OSS network driver on windows if it could solve thier domain woes, which of course it could if......

    --

    And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

  2. Dumb question by Anonytroll · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What about PAM?

    1. Re:Dumb question by noselasd · · Score: 3, Informative

      >OpenDAS is a really good idea and working in the enterprise for several
      >years now, I realize it is a very much needed feature of linux.
      It is. And it already works nice. I've got an OpenLDAP and a MIT kerberos server working nicely together. It almost sounds like there
      is no such thing yet by your post ;)

  3. The problem is for windows... by curious.corn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... it's the poor sap that doesn't have a standard openly documented distributed login system. It's also quite difficult to implement one given that Microsoft knows damn well how crucial it is to possess this part of the infrastructure; otherwise they could have done like apple (OpenLDAP + Kerberos5). They chose to break the stadard (or at least attach undisclosed extensions) in order to remain in it's current 'rabbit' status and make pretty damn shure nobody breaks free of the straglehold (making the authentication interface poorly documented and rather mpossible to substitute without dramatic loss of functionality) Would it be difficult to write a fully working LDAP + Krb5 auth plugin for Windows? I've never seen one... except for the Novell one, and it's not free...

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    1. Re:The problem is for windows... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a non-problem. Windows comes bundled with an robust, easy to use if not "standardized" directory and kerberos implementation.

      If you want to use a "standard" implementation, you can buy identity management software or use something like this http://pgina.xpasystems.com/.

      In any case, the problem with "standard" LDAP/Kerberos implementations is that they are nearly undocumented.

      Ask a skilled NT admin to setup a test domain and he'll be back before lunchtime. Ask most skilled Linux admins to setup a test LDAP/Kerberos5 domain, and he'll be back in two weeks with the project half-done.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    2. Re:The problem is for windows... by hattmoward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If your OpenLDAP/Kerb5 kit was put together right, you could use the LDAPv3 setup for authenticating more standard clients, and use pGINA for Windows. It won't kerberize you (yet), but SSL should provide your basic security. Samba servers using the LDAP backend should fit quite nicely.

      Another idea is to configure LDAPv3, and set up a Samba server(with the LDAP backend) as a Domain Logon server. If these are all on one server, you've pretty much built the same thing Microsoft does on an AD PDC, but without the tight integration. LDAP clients get the full benefit, and Windows clients will work out of the box. Think of it like half-assed AD. :)

      What would be nice is to see something like Apache Toolbox for OpenLDAP and Kerberos. LDAPv3 is quite a task to get set up, and I think the huge learning curve for the system is it's largest flaw. Seriously, Microsoft only needs to know your dns domain to get everything configured, why can't it be that easy? :>

  4. Deeper problem by Twylite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem goes deeper than authentication. Those familiar with Win32 service development should be aware that pipe communication (including SMB used for file sharing) "transparently" communicates the security principal of the caller, so that the service can impersonate the calling (temporarily reducing its effective permissions to those of the caller).

    This is incredibly powerful, as it allows a service to seamlessly integrate with operating system (and by extension enterprise) security, without the service developer needing to reimplement access controls, or implement a new access control system.

    What we need is a generic communication layer that includes:

    • Transparent channel setup, including exchange of credentials and initialisation of security parameters for integrity and/or confidentiality
    • A message-oriented protocol. Message-orientation can provide huge benefits in terms of security, especially if you have a standard daemon/service that handles message receipt and verification before passing it to "third party" code. Such a service can act as a first line of defense against buffer overflows and other data corruption attacks.
    • Allow the service end to impersonate the credentials of the client (temporarily drop permissions), so that there should be no need or excuse for any application to have to invent or implement its own access control system.
    • Provide sufficient hooks and feedback to allow the user to offer alternative authentication, prevent authentication (force anonimity), or reject the authentication of the server end.
    • Is extensible without being ridiculous. The need of certain frameworks to support 10 or 20 cryptographic mechanisms on the server is ridiculous. It makes servers bloated and difficult to develop. At any point in time only one well-considered mechanism is required per desired outcome (e.g. one sign-on and symmetric key negotiation protocol, one symmetric encryption and message authentication protocol).
    • Is easy to use in development. Complex frameworks, as a rule, are complex to use. Thus developers have a preference for reinventing the wheel, because a wheel is easy to understand, whereas a pneumatically endowed polybutadiene sheath of configurable pressure attached to a transverse axis situated at the vertical midpoint of the supporting plane and the bottom of the cart isn't quite so clear.

    But that's just my 2c.

    --
    i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
  5. NDS by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So why not make NDS more freely available?

    Now that Novell has invested in SuSE and Ximian, go full steam ahead in the Linux market, why not bring out Novell Directory Service across platform?

    IIRC, Novell had NDS ready years ago but were pre-empted by a vaporware announcement of AD from Microsoft. Corporate clients were wary of buying NDS, even if it was a nice product, just because they knew that in a year or two MS would come out with their own brand of directory service that would be tightly integrated into other MS products.

    Either do that, or have Samba 4 include more of these combined directory authentication services, hopefully using standardized components such as LDAP and kerberos.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:NDS by T-Ranger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      why not bring out Novell Directory Service across platform?
      NDS/eDirectory currently runs on: Netware, Windows NT 4, Win 2k, 2003, Linux RH 7.3+, SuSE, Solaris 8, 9, AIX and HP-UX. I have to think prety hard to come up with a commercial product that runs on more platforms.

      Novell had NDS ready years ago.... But? "Did not ship it?" "others diddnt use it?"... What?. First, it did ship (and is shipping). Many places use it. After Win95 came out and made file and print sharing easy enough for small networks, Novells market has been Very Large orginizations: health care, government, educational instituions. Large corprate clients bought (and still buy) Novell products. Small sites did not stop buying Novell, they stopped buying any dedicated server things.

      Netware 4 (and thus, NDS) was released in 1993. Microsoft server products were (being Very kind) a compleate joke untill NT 4.0, which was released in 1996. AD was not even on the drawing board untill then, and came with Windows 2000, which shipped at least three years late.

      NDS cooperates with Windows just fine (in fact, it can compleatly replace the domain-based security systems). The choice was never Novell servers OR Microsoft servers.... Im sure that a lot of sites looked at it like that, and perhaps you meant to preface you post with "while true or not, a lot of people looked at NDS v. AD as:", I cant allow you to spew off historical FUD.

      Anyway, now to agree with you.. NDS is cool. NDS is very cool. And as much as I like NDS, NDS isnt the answer... The answer is LDAP, NDS is just one of the possible systems that can implement that.

      And NDS is, all things consitered, prety cheep. Current list price is $2.00 per end user... Unlimited installs of the product itself. (MS stuff would be more like $300 per server, plus per-client costs)

  6. Re:Setting up kerberos by walt-sjc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to second this.

    I was setting up LDAP for internal use so I could do local user accounts, FTP, IMAP, SMTP Auth, web auth, VPN all with one account. Everything seemed to want different named fields for the same thing, and different management tools used different fields, had different requirements, or were not complete enough. This meant that I had to build my own management tool - NOT what I was looking for.

    The LDAP docs for linux are also pathetic. Nothing actually has complete working examples beyond the most simplistic level.

    LDAP doesn't just give you enough rope to hang yourself, you actually have to braid your own rope using the hemp you grew yourself, build a chair, plant your own tree and wait for it to grow enough to throw the rope over before you can hang yourself. THIS is what needs to change.

  7. Re:standard by walt-sjc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you are saying that instead of doing intense security audits and maintaining one system, a system everyone can know well, we should do half-assed audits on dozens of authentication systems and try to maintain them all? The hell with single signon, go maintain dozens of different passwords (or worse, use the same password on everything)???? I don't see how having many disparate systems helps security other than being security through obscurity.

  8. I've had this idea for quite some time. by mewyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been wanting to do something like this for quite some time. I've gotten OpenLDAP and Kerberos 5 working, and it's a solution, but far from an elegant solution. It is difficult to figure out how to get everything working the first time, and I have a few gripes about things (perticularly with OpenLDAP and using authentication through it).

    First of all, OpenLDAP lacks 3 major things to make it a viable enterprise directory service. First off, OpenLDAP needs online shcema and indexing changes. This is not a dealbreaker, but it would make things easier, not having to down the server for the occasional index or schema changes. Next, ACLs must be editable online somehow. This is a must! Things like delegation of access to certian ou's requires this. Third, and most important, is data inheritance. There should be the ability to inherit data onto an object, if it is specified as such, from it's parent. The whole point of creating ou's is to seperate users based on a common attribute. Being able to inherit information from the parent is a must here.

    There are a few other things that are needed. A caching daemon is needed for disconnect capabilities, and gui and text mode utilities are needed for easy administration of the directory.

    Now, I've gone and grabbed the domain opendas.org, and I'm going to think this over a bit, and over the next few days I'm going to put something up there. If anyone is interested in this, drop me a line at mike [at] tuxnami [dot] org.

    ---
    Mike Crawford