[Freeipa-devel] Visibility of the sensitive LDAP data

[JR Aquino]

On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:

> On 06/08/2011 03:15 PM, JR Aquino wrote:
>>>> 1) Leave as is and not bother at all (i.e. it is what it is)
>>>> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> 2) Leave as is and defer the solution till later (do not fix it in 2.1
>>>> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> defer to 2.2)
>>>> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> 3) Leave as is but document how to do it using permissions & ACIs
>>>> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> 4) Provide default ACIs that would hide the records for the broad user
>>>> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> population
>>>> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> Looking for an opinion here.
>>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> I am for (2)
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> Simo.
>>> 
>>> > 
>> I am also for (2)
>> 
>> This logic becomes quite tricky however, because controlling this via ACI's would have to be cognizant of the authenticated user to be able to make the decision to show them only their 
>> /OWN/
>>  authorization/access rights...
>> 
> I am not sure if the user really needs to see these things at all. The SUDO and HBAC rules should be seen by SSSD or the LDAP client on the host (until SUDO is SSSD integrated) the user does not need to see or fetch the rules for himself. I do not think that any system exposes its access control rules in a way that user can inspect and see in advance what he can do and what he can't. 

Correct, specifically...

SSSD doesn't currently have support for SUDO, so a 'BindUser' is used to perform ldap lookups for sudo information, my point was, the Client/Server system is what is performing the ldap lookup, not the user itself.  The system <must> have the ability to review all entries in order to perform the decision making process.  Whether the FreeIPA cli allows a user to run 'ipa hbacrule-find or ipa sudorule-find' is somewhat moot, as they can just do an ldap search to find that information out anyway (in the case of sudo, all of the needed information is present in the clear in /etc/nss_ldap.conf anyway -owned by root-)

So Yes, I think that it is important for the CLI to limit an authenticated user's commands based on their authorization.

BUT

I think in addition to that, it is important to understand that the backend would be a way to short-circuit any prohibitions we implement via the cli.  I suppose ideally, you want to introduce a change that satisfies both requirements.

-JR