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.
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>
Objects of objectclass computer are computers by default now and this changes
the sAMAccountType and primaryGroupID as well as userAccountControl
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>
We now enforce that a trust account must be a user.
These can not be added over LDAP anyway, and our C
code in the RPC server gets this right in any case.
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>
The parts that create and delete a single object can be
safely split out into an individual test.
At this point the parts that fail against Windows 2019 are:
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_computer_add_normal [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_computer_modify [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_user_add_0_uac [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_user_add_normal [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_user_modify [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
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>
Objects with objectclass computer now have UF_WORKSTATION_TRUST_ACCOUNT
by default and so this test must adapt.
The changes to this test passes against Windows 2019 except for
the new behaviour around the UF_WORKSTATION_TRUST_ACCOUNT default.
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 makes the code less indented and simpler to understand.
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 makes many of our tests pass again. We do not pass against Windows 2019 on all
as this does not have this restriction at this time.
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>
There are a lot of knownfail entries added with this commit. These
all need to be addressed and removed in subsequent commits which
will restructure the tests to pass within this new reality.
The restriction is not applied to users with administrator rights,
as this breaks a lot of tests and provides no security benefit.
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>
