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]
