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.
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>
Because the sam account name + the dns host name is used as the
default user principal name, we need to check for collisions between
these. Fixes are coming in upcoming patches.
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 need to have the SPNs there before someone else nabs them, which
makes the re-provisioned old releases different from the reference
versions that we keep for this comparison.
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>
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, leaving SPNs unclaimed is
dangerous, as someone else could grab them first. Secondly, in some
circumstances (self join) we try to add a DNS/ SPN a little bit later
in provision. Under the rules we are introducing for CVE-2020-25722,
this will make our later attempts to add HOST/ fail.
This causes a few errors in samba4.blackbox.dbcheck.* tests, which
assert that revivified old domains match stored reference versions.
Now they don't, because they have servicePrincipalNames.
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>
It is soon going to be impossible to add duplicate SPNs (short of
going behind DSDB's back on the local filesystem). Our test of adding
SPNs on non-admin users doubled as the test for adding a duplicate (using
--force). As --force is gone, we add these tests on Guest after the SPN
on Administrator is gone.
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 did not actually *force* the creation of a duplicate SPN, it just
ignored the client-side check for the existing copy. Soon we are going
to enforce SPN uniqueness on the server side, and this --force will not
work. This will make the --force test fail, and if that tests fail, so
will others that depend the duplicate values. So we remove those tests.
It is wrong-headed to try to make duplicate SPNs in any case, which is
probably why there is no sign of anyone ever having used this option.
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>
Following the convention and making testing easier
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 makes it easier to convert tests that don't have good messages.
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>
You can give ldb_err() it a number, an LdbError, or a sequence of
numbers, and it will return the corresponding strings. Examples:
ldb_err(68) # "LDB_ERR_ENTRY_ALREADY_EXISTS"
LDB_ERR_LUT[68] # "LDB_ERR_ENTRY_ALREADY_EXISTS"
expected = (ldb.ERR_INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS_RIGHTS,
ldb.ERR_INVALID_CREDENTIALS)
try:
foo()
except ldb.LdbError as e:
self.fail(f"got {ldb_err(e)}, expected one of {ldb_err(expected)}")
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 is only ever be called in standalone mode with an MIT realm,
so we don't have a PAC/info3 structure.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This code is only every called in standalone mode on a MIT realm,
it means we never have a PAC and we also don't have winbindd arround.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We should be strict in standalone mode, that we only support MIT realms
without a PAC in order to keep the code sane.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
The 'ktest' environment was/is designed to test kerberos in an active
directory member setup. It was created at a time we wanted to test
smbd/winbindd with kerberos without having the source4 ad dc available.
This still applies to testing the build with system krb5 libraries
but without relying on a running ad dc.
As a domain member setup requires a running winbindd, we should test it
that way, in order to reflect a valid setup.
As a side effect it provides a way to demonstrate that we can accept
smb connections authenticated via kerberos, but no connection to
a domain controller! In order get this working offline, we need an
idmap backend with ID_TYPE_BOTH support, so we use 'autorid', which
should be the default choice.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14646
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This consolidates the code paths used for NTLMSSP and Kerberos!
I checked what we were already doing for NTLMSSP, which is this:
a) source3/auth/auth_winbind.c calls wbcAuthenticateUserEx()
b) as a domain member we require a valid response from winbindd,
otherwise we'll return NT_STATUS_NO_LOGON_SERVERS
c) we call make_server_info_wbcAuthUserInfo(), which internally
calls make_server_info_info3()
d) auth_check_ntlm_password() calls
smb_pam_accountcheck(unix_username, rhost), where rhost
is only an ipv4 or ipv6 address (without reverse dns lookup)
e) from auth3_check_password_send/auth3_check_password_recv()
server_returned_info will be passed to auth3_generate_session_info(),
triggered by gensec_session_info(), which means we'll call into
create_local_token() in order to transform auth_serversupplied_info
into auth_session_info.
For Kerberos gensec_session_info() will call
auth3_generate_session_info_pac() via the gensec_generate_session_info_pac()
helper function. The current logic is this:
a) gensec_generate_session_info_pac() is the function that
evaluates the 'gensec:require_pac', which defaulted to 'no'
before.
b) auth3_generate_session_info_pac() called
wbcAuthenticateUserEx() in order to pass the PAC blob
to winbindd, but only to prime its cache, e.g. netsamlogon cache
and others. Most failures were just ignored.
c) If the PAC blob is available, it extracted the PAC_LOGON_INFO
from it.
d) Then we called the horrible get_user_from_kerberos_info() function:
- It uses a first part of the tickets principal name (before the @)
as username and combines that with the 'logon_info->base.logon_domain'
if the logon_info (PAC) is present.
- As a fallback without a PAC it's tries to ask winbindd for a mapping
from realm to netbios domain name.
- Finally is falls back to using the realm as netbios domain name
With this information is builds 'userdomain+winbind_separator+useraccount'
and calls map_username() followed by smb_getpwnam() with create=true,
Note this is similar to the make_server_info_info3() => check_account()
=> smb_getpwnam() logic under 3.
- It also calls smb_pam_accountcheck(), but may pass the reverse DNS lookup name
instead of the ip address as rhost.
- It does some MAP_TO_GUEST_ON_BAD_UID logic and auto creates the
guest account.
e) We called create_info3_from_pac_logon_info()
f) make_session_info_krb5() calls gets called and triggers this:
- If get_user_from_kerberos_info() mapped to guest, it calls
make_server_info_guest()
- If create_info3_from_pac_logon_info() created a info3 from logon_info,
it calls make_server_info_info3()
- Without a PAC it tries pdb_getsampwnam()/make_server_info_sam() with
a fallback to make_server_info_pw()
From there it calls create_local_token()
I tried to change auth3_generate_session_info_pac() to behave similar
to auth_winbind.c together with auth3_generate_session_info() as
a domain member, as we now rely on a PAC:
a) As domain member we require a PAC and always call wbcAuthenticateUserEx()
and require a valid response!
b) we call make_server_info_wbcAuthUserInfo(), which internally
calls make_server_info_info3(). Note make_server_info_info3()
handles MAP_TO_GUEST_ON_BAD_UID and make_server_info_guest()
internally.
c) Similar to auth_check_ntlm_password() we now call
smb_pam_accountcheck(unix_username, rhost), where rhost
is only an ipv4 or ipv6 address (without reverse dns lookup)
d) From there it calls create_local_token()
As standalone server (in an MIT realm) we continue
with the already existing code logic, which works without a PAC:
a) we keep smb_getpwnam() with create=true logic as it
also requires an explicit 'add user script' option.
b) In the following commits we assert that there's
actually no PAC in this mode, which means we can
remove unused and confusing code.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14646
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
AD domains always provide a PAC unless UF_NO_AUTH_DATA_REQUIRED is set
on the service account, which can only be explicitly configured,
but that's an invalid configuration!
We still try to support standalone servers in an MIT realm,
as legacy setup.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14801
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
[jsutton@samba.org Removed knownfail entries]
