[Fedora-directory-users] Fedora DS 1.0.2 Multiple Master SSL replication: empty bind DN...
Kevin McCarthy
kevin.mccarthy at teligent.co.uk
Wed Jul 5 10:38:13 UTC 2006
Hi Richard,
Thanks, the addition of the cn=config replication entry did indeed allow the
replication to commence between both servers and the additions/deletions of
new user entries were fairly quickly propagated to the other server.
Regards,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Megginson [mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com]
Sent: 03 July 2006 15:26
To: Kevin McCarthy
Cc: fedora-directory-users at redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Fedora-directory-users] Fedora DS 1.0.2 Multiple Master SSL
replication: empty bind DN...
Kevin McCarthy wrote:
> Thanks again Richard,
>
> My attempt to determine why the bind DN remains as "" have still not
located
> the cause - though I guess that is due to this being my first usage and I
> have merely missed the obvious!
>
>
>> To ensure that you are doing client cert auth, you can examine the access
>> log on the replication consumer - look for the connection and BIND from
>> the supplier. If you're not sure what you're looking at, just post the
>> relevant excerpts here.
>>
>
> I can see from the bind result that the initial "dn" is still the
required:
>
> "cn=nema2,ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk"
>
> ..but the BIND dn remains as "", with the method as "sasl"?
>
Actually, the method is SASL/EXTERNAL, which means the BIND identity
comes from somewhere else (in this case, the certificate). So, dn="" is
ignored since it is obtained from the certificate.
>
> Consumer Access log file extract:
>
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 fd=67 slot=67 SSL connection from
> 192.168.27.15 to 192.168.144.61
>
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 SSL 256-bit AES; client
> CN=nema2,OU=EDS,O=teligent,DC=co,C=uk; issuer CN=CAcertnema2
>
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 SSL client bound as
> cn=nema2,ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk
>
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 op=0 BIND dn="" method=sasl version=3
> mech=EXTERNAL
>
All of this means that you are definitely doing client cert auth. You
say that the entry cn=nema2,ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk exists on both
servers (and cn=nema1 or cn=nema also)? And you have this DN listed in
the supplier DN in the replica configuration? If so, then it could be
that replication does not allow you to specify a supplier DN that lives
in the replicated area. What we usually recommend is that you create a
replication pseudo user in the configuration naming context e.g.
dn: cn=repluser, cn=config
objectclass: person
sn: repluser
cn: repluser
userPassword: password
Then configure cert mapping to map the subjectDN in the cert to this
user. To make certmapping work, you may have to name the replication
pseudo user something like cn=nema or cn=nema2 so you can use the
attributes in the cert subjectDN to map to the pseudo user. Then you
will need to have the pseudo user DN as the supplier DN in the replica
configuration.
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0
> etime=0 dn="cn=nema2,ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk"
>
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 op=1 SRCH base="" scope=0
> filter="(objectClass=*)" attrs="supportedControl supportedExtension"
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1
> etime=0
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 op=2 SRCH base="" scope=0
> filter="(objectClass=*)" attrs="supportedControl supportedExtension"
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 op=2 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1
> etime=0
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 op=3 EXT
oid="2.16.840.1.113730.3.5.3"
> name="Netscape Replication Start Session"
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] conn=11 op=3 RESULT err=0 tag=120 nentries=0
> etime=0
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:12 +0100] conn=11 op=4 EXT
oid="2.16.840.1.113730.3.5.3"
> name="Netscape Replication Start Session"
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:12 +0100] conn=11 op=4 RESULT err=0 tag=120 nentries=0
> etime=0
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:15 +0100] conn=11 op=5 EXT
oid="2.16.840.1.113730.3.5.3"
> name="Netscape Replication Start Session"
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:15 +0100] conn=11 op=5 RESULT err=0 tag=120 nentries=0
> etime=0
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:19 +0100] conn=11 op=6 EXT
oid="2.16.840.1.113730.3.5.3"
> name="Netscape Replication Start Session"
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:19 +0100] conn=11 op=6 RESULT err=0 tag=120 nentries=0
> etime=0
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:28 +0100] conn=11 op=8 EXT
oid="2.16.840.1.113730.3.5.3"
> name="Netscape Replication Start Session"
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:28 +0100] conn=11 op=8 RESULT err=0 tag=120 nentries=0
> etime=0
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:34 +0100] conn=10 op=4 UNBIND
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:34 +0100] conn=10 op=4 fd=64 closed - U1
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:46 +0100] conn=11 op=10 EXT
oid="2.16.840.1.113730.3.5.3"
> name="Netscape Replication Start Session"
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:46 +0100] conn=11 op=10 RESULT err=0 tag=120 nentries=0
> etime=0
> [03/Jul/2006:10:25:08 +0100] conn=11 op=12 UNBIND
> [03/Jul/2006:10:25:08 +0100] conn=11 op=12 fd=67 closed - U1
>
> Consumer Error log file extract:
>
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:11 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=11 op=3
> replica="ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=
> co,c=uk": Unable to acquire replica: error: permission denied
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:12 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=11 op=4
> replica="ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk": Unable to acquire replica: error:
> permission denied
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:15 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=11 op=5
> replica="ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk": Unable to acquire replica: error:
> permission denied
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:19 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=11 op=6
> replica="ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk": Unable to acquire replica: error:
> permission denied
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:28 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=11 op=8
> replica="ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk": Unable to acquire replica: error:
> permission denied
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:46 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=11 op=10
> replica="ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk": Unable to acquire replica: error:
> permission denied
> [03/Jul/2006:10:24:50 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - agmt="cn=EDS from
> Server 1" (nema2:636): Unable to acquire replica: permission denied. The
> bind dn "" does not have permission to supply replication updates to the
> replica. Will retry later.
>
>
> Regards and thanks again,
> Kevin
>
> From: Richard Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-directory-users] Fedora DS 1.0.2 Multiple Master
> SSL replication: empty bind DN...
> To: "General discussion list for the Fedora Directory server project."
> <fedora-directory-users at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <44A51838.4040409 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Kevin McCarthy wrote:
>
>> Richard, thank you for your response!
>>
>> hopefully whatever configuration mistake I made to cause a NULL bind
>> DN will soon come to light
>>
>>
>>> Dear List Members,
>>>
>>> Release: *fedora-ds-1.0.2-1.RHEL3.i386.opt.rpm*
>>>
>>> A typical replication error log entry now follows (seen repeatedly at
>>>
>>> both fedora DS servers):
>>>
>>> [28/Jun/2006:18:29:21 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - agmt="cn=EDS from
>>>
>>> server 2" (ukstatlap:636): Unable to acquire replica: permission
>>>
>>> denied. The *bind dn ""* does not have permission to supply
>>>
>>> replication updates to the replica. Will retry later.
>>>
>>> Believe me, I have been investigating this one for 2 or 3 days now
>>>
>>> (having just switched from OpenLDAP, since multiple master replication
>>>
>>> is required) before sending this submission, just in case I missed a
>>>
>>> configuration item or work-around, but unfortunately no luck (so far).
>>>
>>> The only reference I can find for SSL Client Authentication based
>>>
>>> Multiple Master replication (2 Linux RHEL 3 servers being used) that
>>>
>>> supplies empty DNs, is the Windows specific entry (whose work-around I
>>>
>>> tried anyway, but without success)_
>>>
>>> Unable to acquire replica: permission denied. The bind dn "" does not
>>>
>>> have permission to supply replication updates to the replica. Will
>>>
>>> retry later.
>>>
>>> To workaround the problem, after you modify and save the replication
>>>
>>> schedule of an agreement, refresh the console, reconfigure the
>>>
>>> connection settings (to SSL client authentication) for the agreement,
>>>
>>> and save your changes.
>>>
>>> http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/release-notes/ds611relno
>>>
>>> tes.html
>>>
>>> The mutual _Current Supplier DNs_ are indeed set (cn=Replication
>>>
>>> Manager,cn=replication,cn=config) and the corresponding directory
>>>
>>> entries do exist.
>>>
>>> The respective server certificates and CA certificates are installed,
>>>
>>> with Subject DN entries loaded.
>>>
>> What are the SubjectDNs in the server certificates?
>>
>> CN=<SERVERNAME>,OU=EDS,O=teligent,DC=co,C=uk
>>
>> where <SERVERNAME> is the respective server name of the replicating
>> servers e.g. nema2 rather than a full domain name.
>>
>>
> I think this is ok, as long as your DNS (/etc/resolv.conf) configuration
> can resolve nema2.
>
>> The following will hopefully also be relevant:
>>
>> 1) The tree being replicated is OU=EDS,O=Teligent,DC=co,C=uk i.e.
>> the Subject DN is within the replicated tree.
>>
>> 2) certutil was used to generate the server and CA certificates.
>> Surprisingly (to me at least) the CA certificate was then listed in
>> the "Server Certs" panel on the Directory Server Manage Certificates
>> panel.
>>
>> 3) I loaded the ascii version of the other servers CA Certificate
>> directly into the CA Certs panel.
>>
>> 4) All CA certificates have both the accept and make connection trusts
>> ticked.
>>
>>
>>> I do _not_ have Legacy Consumer enabled.
>>>
>> You don't need it.
>>
>>
>>> CertMapping is also defined (though with a NULL DN being supplied, I
>>>
>>> guess that will not be kicking in just yet, though there are entries
>>>
>>> for the exact subject DN anyway.)
>>>
>> You might want to post your certmap.conf and see here -
>> http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Howto:CertMapping
>>
>> I must admit that since the Bind DN was NULL I had not realized that
>> certmapping would actually take affect.
>>
>>
> If you are using client cert based auth (and not just username/password
> auth with SSL) then certmapping will be used. To ensure that you are
> doing client cert auth, you can examine the access log on the
> replication consumer - look for the connection and BIND from the
> supplier. If you're not sure what you're looking at, just post the
> relevant excerpts here.
>
> ...log file extract at the head.
>
>
>> I ensured that the exact subject DN of the server certificates
>> corresponded to an actual directory entry (with the respective
>> servers user certificate loaded), which I had thought would be
>> matched without the need for a certmap configuration via the original
>> default option, but I tried one anyway
>>
>> certmap nema ou=EDS,o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk
>>
>>
> I think this DN should correspond to the issuerDN (i.e. the subjectDN of
> your CA cert). But I don't think it's used for cert mapping.
>
>> nema:FilterComps cn
>>
>>
> This means you must have one and only one entry called cn=nema2, .....,
> o=teligent,dc=co,c=uk somewhere in your tree.
>
> ...indeed, just the one.
>
>
>> nema:verifycert off
>>
>> certmap default default
>>
>> indeed one server still runs with the default certmap configuration
>> to see if it made any difference, but both servers receive a NULL bind
>> DN .
>>
>>
> This leads me to believe it is not doing client cert auth. Also check
> the errors log for your supplier and consumer.
>
> ...extracts at the head.
>
>>> When using simple authentication, with or without SSL, all is well
>>>
>>> (although replication did require both servers to Initialize the
>>>
>>> Consumer, I thought that only one was required e.g. ID 1 initializing
>>>
>>> ID 2, but ID 2 then needed to initialize ID 1 before successful 2-way
>>>
>>> replication was achieved).
>>>
>> That's odd. You should only need to initialize once one way.
>>
>> indeed, but I guess that it can not do any harm, as the secondary
>> server will not actually need to supply any further updates back to
>> the primary server and it does at least make the mutual replication
>> work for me until the certificates took their toll
>>
>
>
>
More information about the Fedora-directory-users
mailing list