Re: LDAP Login Problem

From: Tom Robst <tomrobst(at)thermocable(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LDAP Login Problem
Date: 2010-03-03 15:29:54
Message-ID: 4B8E8072.1080309@thermocable.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Thanks Magnus. I should have mentioned I'm using OpenLDAP 2.2. I guess
I'll just have to wait for Postgres 9 and workaround it in the meantime.
It's not an insurmountable issue...

Regards,
Tom Robst
--

On 03/03/10 15:18, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2010/3/3 Tom Robst<tomrobst(at)thermocable(dot)com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am having a problem with authentication using LDAP on PostgreSQL 8.4.2.
>>
>> The problem seems to be limited to which attribute is specified in the ldapprefix. If I specify "uid=" and then try login using the username "trobst" (which is the value in the ldap db) I get an error:
>>
>> host all all 192.168.1.0/24 ldap ldapserver=ldap.thermocable.com ldapprefix="uid=" ldapsuffix=",cn=Staff,dc=thermocable,dc=com"
>>
>> LOG: LDAP login failed for user
>> "uid=trobst,cn=Staff,dc=thermocable,dc=com" on server
>> "ldap.thermocable.com": error code 49
>> FATAL: LDAP authentication failed for user "trobst"
>>
>> However if I specify the ldapprefix to be "cn=" and login using the username "Tom Robst" it all works fine.
>>
>> host all all 192.168.1.0/24 ldap ldapserver=ldap.thermocable.com ldapprefix="cn=" ldapsuffix=",cn=Staff,dc=thermocable,dc=com"
>
> The LDAP authentication needs to bind with the full DN, which is
> "cn=...". Specifying uid= doesn't make it a valid LDAP distinguished
> name. So unless your LDAP server is "tricky" (like the Microsoft one,
> which accepts both DN and "DOMAIN\username" in the login packet),
> there's nothing you can do I think. (well, you can also change all
> your DNs in the LDAP catalog, but that's likely to break a lot of
> other things)
>
> PostgreSQL 9.0 will allow you do do a search+bind to get the
> functionality you want. The change should be fairly standalone so you
> could probably have it backpatched if it's urgent for you, but since
> it's a new feature it's not something the community backpatches.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ivan Sergio Borgonovo 2010-03-03 15:31:30 Re: bug in function arguments "recognition"
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-03-03 15:22:31 Re: bug in function arguments "recognition"