Re: GSSAPI vs load-balanced servers - anything we can do?

This is a discussion on Re: GSSAPI vs load-balanced servers - anything we can do? within the OpenSSH Development forums, part of the Networking and Network Related category; On 14/09/07 22:26, Simon Wilkinson wrote: ... > RFC4120 (the revised Kerberos RFC) states > Implementations of Kerberos ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Networking and Network Related > OpenSSH Development

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2007
Jan Iven
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GSSAPI vs load-balanced servers - anything we can do?

On 14/09/07 22:26, Simon Wilkinson wrote:
...
> RFC4120 (the revised Kerberos RFC) states
> Implementations of Kerberos and protocols based on Kerberos MUST NOT
> use insecure DNS queries to canonicalize the hostname components of
> the service principal names
>
> So, I suspect that the language in 1964 will get updated at some point
> in the future. There are already vendors who ship Kerberos GSSAPI
> libraries with canonicalisation disabled.


Interesting (even though this is just for Kerberos, not GSSAPI - and the
GSSAPI RFC 2743 still says "the 'hostname' may (as an example
implementation strategy) be canonicalized by attempting a DNS
lookup"..). But "GSSAPI-for-SSH" rfc4462 is rather clear on the issue.

Do you know whether there is something foreseen to determine whether a
given GSSAPI library will do canonicalization?

> Bear in mind, too, that the client side GSSAPI support is completely
> mechanism independent - you can use it with X509 based mechanisms such
> as GSI, and indeed any other GSSAPI mech that you have a library for.
> So, hardcoding canonicalisation is the wrong thing to do.


Thanks for reminding me. For now, we seem to get by with client-side
canonicalization due to Kerberos being the only native mechanism on the
server-side (i.e. without Globus patches).

> The best bet at the moment is to provide a configuration option that
> allows the user to indicate whether or not they wish to trust the DNS to
> canonicalise the host name - which is what my GSSAPITrustDNS patch does
> (This patch is also included in my GSSAPI patch bundle, which really
> needs updated to 4.7 ...)


Nice, looking forward to it. It means we would have to store two
identities in the keytab (hostname+DNS-cluster-name), I remember that
you had a path for using both as well somewhere. Will have a look.


Regards
Jan
_______________________________________________
openssh-unix-dev mailing list
openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/li...enssh-unix-dev
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0