IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
This is a strange one, it uses DN_BINARY in the drsuapi
representation, while the binary part must be 0 bytes.
and the LDAP/ldb representation is a plain DN (without 'B:').
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This demonstrates that our OR-Name syntax is wrong,
which wasn't noticed yet as it's not used in the AD-Schema.
I noticed it by installing the Exchange-Schema on a Samba DC.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
The DS_SERVER_DS_8 flag is necessary for Windows to detect FAST support.
Note for know we only ever have DS_DOMAIN_FUNCTION_2008_R2 (4) in the
msDS-Behavior-Version attribute of our own NTDSA object. So
for now this is only for manual testing. In future we most likely
want to extend 'samba-tool domain level' to raise the dc level
manually or let 'samba' autoupgrade the value.
Pair-Programmed-With: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
[MS-ADTS] 6.3.3.2 "Domain Controller Response to an LDAP Ping" indicates
that the resulting flags depend on the server software (behavior)
and not the domain wide functional level.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
We were instead only checking the expected error.
Signed-off-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
RN: Do not modify the caller-supplied memory in the anr=* handling to
allow clear logging of the actual caller request after it has been processed.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14694
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
We allow a timeout of 2x over to avoid this being a flapping test.
Samba is not very accurate on the timeout, which is not otherwise an
issue but makes this test fail sometimes.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14694
Signed-off-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
If one of the objectClass checks passed, samldb_add() could return
through one of the samldb_fill_*() functions and skip the
servicePrincipalName uniqueness checking.
Signed-off-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
If the structural objectclass is allowed to change, then the restrictions
locking an object to remaining a user or computer will not be enforcable.
Likewise other LDAP inheritance rules, which allow only certain
child objects can be bypassed, which can in turn allow creation of
(unprivileged) users where only DNS objects were expected.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14889
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
These common routines will assist the KDC to do the same access
checking as the RPC servers need to do regarding which accounts
a RODC can act with regard to.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14558
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Nobody uses it now. It never really did what it said it did. Almost
every use was wrong. It was a trap.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This tightens the logic a bit, in that a message with trailing DELETE
elements is no longer accepted when the bypass flag is set. In any case
this is an unlikely scenario as this is an internal flag set by a private
control in pdb_samba_dsdb_replace_by_sam().
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
dsdb_get_single_valued_attr() was finding the last non-delete element for
userAccountControl and changing its value to the computed value.
Unfortunately, the last non-delete element might not be the last element,
and a subsequent delete might remove it.
Instead we just add a replace on the end.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
There is another call to dsdb_get_expected_new_values() in this function
that we change in the next commit.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Using dsdb_get_expected_new_values().
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
using dsdb_get_expected_new_values().
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This function collects a superset of all the new values for the specified
attribute that could result from an ldb add or modify message.
In most cases -- where there is a single add or modify -- the exact set
of added values is returned, and this is done reasonably efficiently
using the existing element. Where it gets complicated is when there are
multiple elements for the same attribute in a message. Anything added
before a replace or delete will be included in these results but may not
end up in the database if the message runs its course. Examples:
sequence result
1. ADD the element is returned (exact)
2. REPLACE the element is returned (exact)
3. ADD, ADD both elements are concatenated together (exact)
4. ADD, REPLACE both elements are concatenated together (superset)
5. REPLACE, ADD both elements are concatenated together (exact)
6. ADD, DEL, ADD adds are concatenated together (superset)
7. REPLACE, REPLACE both concatenated (superset)
8. DEL, ADD last element is returned (exact)
Why this? In the past we have treated dsdb_get_single_valued_attr() as if
it returned the complete set of possible database changes, when in fact it
only returned the last non-delete. That is, it could have missed values
in examples 3-7 above.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Not only should it not be possible to add a servicePrincipalName that
is already present in the domain, it should not be possible to add one
that is implied by an entry in sPNMappings, unless the user is adding
an alias to another SPN and has rights to alter that one.
For example, with the default sPNMappings, cifs/ is an alias pointing to
host/, meaning if there is no cifs/example.com SPN, the host/example.com
one will be used instead. A user can add the cifs/example.com SPN only
if they can also change the host/example.com one (because adding the
cifs/ effectively changes the host/). The reverse is refused in all cases,
unless they happen to be on the same object. That is, if there is a
cifs/example.com SPN, there is no way to add host/example.com elsewhere.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This only for the real account name, not the account name implicit in
a UPN. It doesn't matter if a UPN implies an illegal sAMAccountName,
since that is not going to conflict with a real one.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We already know duplicate sAMAccountNames and UserPrincipalNames are bad,
but we also have to check against the values these imply in each other.
For example, imagine users with SAM account names "Alice" and "Bob" in
the realm "example.com". If they do not have explicit UPNs, by the logic
of MS-ADTS 5.1.1.1.1 they use the implict UPNs "alice@example.com" and
"bob@example.com", respectively. If Bob's UPN gets set to
"alice@example.com", it will clash with Alice's implicit one.
Therefore we refuse to allow a UPN that implies an existing SAM account
name and vice versa.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This takes a string of logic out of samldb_unique_attr_check() that we
are going to need in other places, and that would be very tedious to
repeat.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
These need to stay a little bit in sync. The reverse comment is there.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We should not fail open on error.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Thankfully we are aleady in a loop over all the message elements in
acl_modify() so this is an easy and safe change to make.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Validate Writes and Control Access Rights only grant access if the
object is of the type listed in the Right's appliesTo attribute. For
example, even though a Validated-SPN access may be granted to a user
object in the SD, it should only pass if the object is of class
computer This patch enforces the appliesTo attribute classes for
access checks from within the ldb stack.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14832
Signed-off-by: Nadezhda Ivanova <nivanova@symas.com>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Validate Writes and Control Access Rights should only grant access if the
object is of the type listed in the Right's appliesTo attribute.
Tests to verify this behavior
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14832
Signed-off-by: Nadezhda Ivanova <nivanova@symas.com>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Without these calls the tests could pass if an expected error did not
occur.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14832
Signed-off-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
[abartlet@samba.org Included in backport as changing ACLs while
ACL tests are not checking for unexpected success would be bad]
This new restriction breaks a large number of assumptions in the tests, like
that you can remove some UF_ flags, because it turns out doing so will
make the 'computer' a 'user' again, and this will fail.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
This favors a test that confirms we got an error over getting exactly
the right error, at least for now.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
