Search Results

Search found 392 results on 16 pages for 'kerberos'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 6/16 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Apache Bad Request "Size of a request header field exceeds server limit" with Kerberos SSO

    - by Aurelin
    I'm setting up an SSO for Active Directory users through a website that runs on an Apache (Apache2 on SLES 11.1), and when testing with Firefox it all works fine. But when I try to open the website in Internet Explorer 8 (Windows 7), all I get is "Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. Size of a request header field exceeds server limit. Authorization: Negotiate [ultra long string]" My vhost.cfg looks like this: <VirtualHost hostname:443> LimitRequestFieldSize 32760 LimitRequestLine 32760 LogLevel debug <Directory "/data/pwtool/sec-data/adbauth"> AuthName "Please login with your AD-credentials (Windows Account)" AuthType Kerberos KrbMethodNegotiate on KrbAuthRealms REALM.TLD KrbServiceName HTTP/hostname Krb5Keytab /data/pwtool/conf/http_hostname.krb5.keytab KrbMethodK5Passwd on KrbLocalUserMapping on Order allow,deny Allow from all </Directory> <Directory "/data/pwtool/sec-data/adbauth"> Require valid-user </Directory> SSLEngine on SSLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:!EXPORT56:RC4+RSA:+HIGH:+MEDIUM:+LOW:+SSLv2:+EXP:+eNULL SSLCertificateFile /etc/apache2/ssl.crt/hostname-server.crt SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/apache2/ssl.key/hostname-server.key </VirtualHost> I also made sure that the cookies are deleted and tried several smaller values for LimitRequestFieldSize and LimitRequestLine. Another thing that seems weird to me is that even with LogLevel debug I won't get any logs about this. The log's last line is ssl_engine_kernel.c(1879): OpenSSL: Write: SSL negotiation finished successfully Does anyone have an idea about that?

    Read the article

  • What is SASL/GSSAPI?

    - by NT332
    Numerous times i have met the expression SASL/GSSAPI. I have searched Google many times, but i simply do no understand what it is and how it relate to Kerberos. Anybody that have a simple explanation on this?

    Read the article

  • Can't chgrp in NFS4 mounts

    - by Philipp
    Hello, I'm using Linux in a large multi-user network. Let A be some group which I'm am member of, but which is not my primary group. According to chmod(2) I should be able to chgrp a file to group A. Trying to do so succeeds on a local as well as on a NFSv3 mount, but not on a NFSv4/Kerberos mount (EPERM). Are there any special considerations regarding chgrp when using NFSv4 mounts?

    Read the article

  • Directly printing to remote CUPS/IPP server on Snow Leopard

    - by Martin v. Löwis
    I need to use Kerberos authentication when printing from my OSX machine, however, the machine itself does not have a service account in active directory, so the KDC will not issue a delegation ticket for the local CUPS installation. I think printing could work if the printing framework would directly print to the network CUPS server (or even to the Windows print server), bypassing the local CUPS. Is it possible to setup printing so that it directly accesses the remote print server? (asking for a service ticket for that server would succeed)

    Read the article

  • Directly printing to remote CUPS/IPP server on Snow Leopard

    - by Martin v. Löwis
    I need to use Kerberos authentication when printing from my OSX machine, however, the machine itself does not have a service account in active directory, so the KDC will not issue a delegation ticket for the local CUPS installation. I think printing could work if the printing framework would directly print to the network CUPS server (or even to the Windows print server), bypassing the local CUPS. Is it possible to setup printing so that it directly accesses the remote print server? (asking for a service ticket for that server would succeed)

    Read the article

  • perl issuing os command with defined variables

    - by Vinnie Biros
    I am adding functionality into my scripts so that they can use kerberos authentication to run automatically and use secure protocols when executing. I have my functionality working for shell scripts that do exactly what i want, however i am having issues porting it to perl to work within my perl scripts as i am new to perl. Here is my working shell code and trying to get the same functionality in perl: #!/bin/sh ticketFileName=`basename $0-$$` #set filename variable to name of script plus the PID krb5CacheLocation=/tmp/$ticketFileName #set ticket cache location to /tmp + script name /usr/share/centrifydc/kerberos/bin/kinit -c $krb5CacheLocation -kt /root/.ssh/someaccount.keytab someaccount #get TGT and specifiy ticket cache location on kinit export KRB5CCNAME=$krb5CacheLocation #set the KRB5CCNAME variable to tell ssh where to look What i have attempted in perl: #!/usr/bin/perl my $ticketFileName = `basename $0-$$`; my $krb5CacheLocation = '/tmp/'.$ticketFileName; `export KRB5CCNAME=$krb5CacheLocation`; `/usr/share/centrifydc/kerberos/bin/kinit -c $krb5CacheLocation -kt /root/.ssh/unixmap0000.keytab unixmap0000`; Seems it is not liking the passed variable that i am referencing in the OS command. Anyone have any ideas or suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Can I link proxy users from a single LDS instance to multiple domains?

    - by ixe013
    I have an Active Directory Lightweight Directory Services set up. I have objects that represent users in the Active Directory (Domain_A). I have set their objectSID attribute, and users can authenticate to LDS with their Active Directory password. I love it. I want to bring in new users, from a different Active Directory (Domain_B) that has not trust relationship whatsoever with the Active Directory from Domain_A. Is there a way to tell LDS in which domain to look for users or does it always look in the domain it is in, maybe by using another protocol than Kerberos ? +I figured out user provisionning, no need to mention it. Thanks !

    Read the article

  • How to debug ssh authentication failures with gssapi-with-mic

    - by Arthur Ulfeldt
    when i ssh to DOMAIN\user@localhosts-name authentication works fine through gssapi-with-mic: debug3: remaining preferred: gssapi,publickey,keyboard-interactive,password debug3: authmethod_is_enabled gssapi-with-mic debug1: Next authentication method: gssapi-with-mic debug2: we sent a gssapi-with-mic packet, wait for reply debug3: Wrote 112 bytes for a total of 1255 debug1: Delegating credentials debug3: Wrote 2816 bytes for a total of 4071 debug1: Delegating credentials debug3: Wrote 80 bytes for a total of 4151 debug1: Authentication succeeded (gssapi-with-mic). when I connect to a different machine It just seems to stop half way through the gssapi-with-mic authentication: debug1: Next authentication method: gssapi-with-mic debug2: we sent a gssapi-with-mic packet, wait for reply debug3: Wrote 112 bytes for a total of 1255 debug1: Delegating credentials debug3: Wrote 2816 bytes for a total of 4071 <----- ???? debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,gssapi-keyex,gssapi-with-mic,password,keyboard-interactive How should I go about finding out what happened differently the second time. How can I find out if/why the auth was rejected by kerberos?

    Read the article

  • kerberos5 unable to authenticate

    - by wolfgangsz
    We have a Debian file server, configured to serve up samba shares, using winbind and kerberos. This is configured to authenticate against a Windows2003 DC. All worked fine until recently when I did a maintenance update on all packages. Since then, all attempts to connect to any of the shares (and also to just log into the box) fail. The logs contain this message, which seems to be at the root of the evil: [2009/09/14 12:04:29, 10] libsmb/clikrb5.c:get_krb5_smb_session_key(685) Got KRB5 session key of length 16 [2009/09/14 12:04:29, 10] libsmb/clikrb5.c:unwrap_pac(280) authorization data is not a Windows PAC (type: 141) [2009/09/14 12:04:29, 3] libads/kerberos_verify.c:ads_verify_ticket(430) ads_verify_ticket: did not retrieve auth data. continuing without PAC From there on it fails to find the user account on the DC, subsequently remaps the user to user nobody and then (rightly) refuses to grant access to the share. However, the following works just fine: wbinfo -a user%password I was wondering whether anybody has had this problem and could provide some insight. I would be happy to provide neutralised config files.

    Read the article

  • Failure to create keytab file using msktutil on Centos to W2K8

    - by user49321
    I'm trying to setup a centos 5.5 squid server to authenticate against a windows 2008 DC. I have followed the tutorial: http://serverfault.com/questions/66556/getting-squid-to-authenticate-with-kerberos-and-windows-2008-2003-7-xp However I have run into an issue. When I run the command: (Obviously changed for my enviroment) # msktutil -c -b "CN=COMPUTERS" -s HTTP/centos.dom.local -h centos.dom.local -k /etc/HTTP.keytab --computer-name centos-http --upn HTTP/centos.dom.local --server server.dom.local --verbose --enctypes 28 I get the following error (The whole message is too long to post here): Error: Unable to set machine password for centos: (3) Authentication error Error: set_password failed kinit works fine and the computer is added to the DC under COMPUTERS and SRV records created except no keytab is created.

    Read the article

  • How can i get SSO for alfresco on windows-7 to work?

    - by Maarten
    domain AD on windows 2008 R2, linux server alfresco 3.4c, windows-7 client. I'm trying to get automatically logged into alfresco from the windows-7 client. I've looked with wireshark to see what happens: 1. Client goes to /alfresco 2. Server sends Redirect to page 3. Client goes to Redirected page 4. Server sends a WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate header 5. Client DOES NOT respond to this how can i configure the windows-7 client (or the AD domain) so that the client will in fact engage with the SPNEGO protocol? instead of just asking for user credentials? (the user is logged in through kerberos in the domain.)

    Read the article

  • iPad revocable vpn access

    - by carpat
    I'm a programmer at my organization, but somehow got drafted into looking into some server stuff so forgive me of my ignorance: They want to give our sales people secure access to our internal sites using their iPads. This must be secure (obviously) but also revocable from the company's side (if someone quits they can no longer access our network). I see from http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1288 that the iPad supports "RSA SecurID", "CRYPTOCard", and "Kerberos" authentication methods. Will one of these do what we need? Are there any major differences between them?

    Read the article

  • Authentication through mod_auth_kerb should provide website with no user if no TGT provided

    - by loomi
    Users are authenticated by mod_auth_kerb which works great. Therefore I need to set Require valid-user If there is no valid user Apache fails with an 401 Authorization Required. I would like Apache to deliver the website anyway but not providing a remote_user to the underlying script. This is related to How to tell mod_auth_kerb to do its job despite no "require valid-user". But with the important difference that on a whole subdirectory on every url a kerberos negotation should be initiated, and if it fails it should deliver the content anyway.

    Read the article

  • What breaks in a Windows domain if a member has a high time skew?

    - by Ryan Ries
    It's taken for granted by most IT people that in a Windows domain, if a member server's clock is off by more than 5 minutes (or however many minutes you've configured it for) from that of its domain controller - logons and authentications will fail. But that is not necessarily true. At least not for all authentication processes on all versions of Windows. For instance, I can set my time on my Windows 7 client to be skewed all to heck - logoff/logon still works fine. What happens is that my client sends an AS_REQ (with his time stamp) to the domain controller, and the DC responds with KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW. But the magic is that when the DC responds with the aforementioned Kerberos error, the DC also includes his time stamp, which the client in turn uses to adjust his own time and resubmits the AS_REQ, which is then approved. This behavior is not considered a security threat because encryption and secrets are still being used in the communication. This is also not just a Microsoft thing. RFC 4430 describes this behavior. So my question is does anyone know when this changed? And why is it that other things fail? For instance, Office Communicator kicks me off if my clock starts drifting too far out. I really wish to have more detail on this. edit: Here's the bit from RFC 4430 that I'm talking about: If the server clock and the client clock are off by more than the policy-determined clock skew limit (usually 5 minutes), the server MUST return a KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW. The optional client's time in the KRB-ERROR SHOULD be filled out. If the server protects the error by adding the Cksum field and returning the correct client's time, the client SHOULD compute the difference (in seconds) between the two clocks based upon the client and server time contained in the KRB-ERROR message. The client SHOULD store this clock difference and use it to adjust its clock in subsequent messages. If the error is not protected, the client MUST NOT use the difference to adjust subsequent messages, because doing so would allow an attacker to construct authenticators that can be used to mount replay attacks.

    Read the article

  • The Story of secure user-authentication in squid

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry if the story is boring and messy, but most of it is real! =) /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • secure user-authentication in squid

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • secure user-authentication in squid: The Story

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • TGT validation fails, but only for one user

    - by wzzrd
    I'm seeing the weirdest thing here. I have a couple of RHEL3, 4 and 5 machines that validate user credentials through Kerberos with an Active Directoy domain controller as their KDC. This works for all of my users, save one. There is one account that is unable to log into RHEL3 Linux machines and generates the following errors there: May 31 13:53:19 mybox sshd(pam_unix)[7186]: authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=10.0.0.1 user=user May 31 13:53:20 mybox sshd[7186]: pam_krb5: TGT verification failed for `user' May 31 13:53:20 mybox sshd[7186]: pam_krb5: authentication fails for `user' Other accounts, like my own, are fine: May 31 17:25:30 mybox sshd(pam_unix)[12913]: authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=10.0.0.1 user=myuser May 31 17:25:31 mybox sshd[12913]: pam_krb5: TGT for myuser successfully verified May 31 17:25:31 mybox sshd[12913]: pam_krb5: authentication succeeds for `myuser' May 31 17:25:31 mybox sshd(pam_unix)[12915]: session opened for user myuser by (uid=0) As you can see, TGT validation fails. This only happens for this specific account, not for any other. The failing useraccount's password has been reset, I inspected both user objects in Active Directory, but I see nothing out of the ordinary. If I have the failing useraccount log into a RHEL4 or 5 box, there is not problem, so it must be RHEL3 specific, but the fact that only one account suffers from this, alludes me. Maybe someone has seen this before?

    Read the article

  • Is this a possible way to get Drupal AD SSO?

    - by JollyRogers
    I'm currently building a Drupal website in an Active Directory environment. One of the site's requirements is Single Sign On, which to date seems to be impossible because there is no Kerberos SPNEGO/GSSAPI auth module for drupal. I've come up with an idea on how SSO could be attempted on IIS. Since IIS has the option to require Kerberos authentication, we can let IIS handle authentication and use the AUTH_USER server variable to pass the authorized user name to the an 'improved' LDAP_auth module. The LDAP_auth module would then check the user name (but not password since it doesn't know or need to know the password) against LDAP to get the user's roles. (AD groups) Does anyone know if this is possible? If so, does anyone have any ideas on how to implement this?

    Read the article

  • kerberos NTLM authentication

    - by rockbala
    Hi, Where can I check in Windows Server 2008 that Kereberos/NTLM is the authentication protocol used after the whole network is set up/installed. There is only 1 domain controller with AD services and is not affiliated with any other domains. Regards, Balaji S

    Read the article

  • Setting up Windows Authentication In Reporting Services Using Kerberos

    - by Vineet
    Hi, I have yet another problem with Reporting services. Finally I was able to set the ball rolling, achieving success in configuring reporting services with a domain user account. Now I have a problem accessing the server from another machine (in the same domain) using Integrated Windows Authentication in IIS 6.0. I have never had problems with this on networks using NT Authentication, but this is the first time our network is set up to use Kerberos. Here are my IIS settings - Reports (Manager) & ReportServer Virtual directories under Default Website, Both these are configured to run with Integrated Windows Authentication..Anonymous access turned OFF. Reporting Services Windows Service runs under Network service account and Web Service under a domain user account. Note - If I turn on Basic Authentication, it works fine, exceeding all my expectations, but this is not something I want. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Vineet

    Read the article

  • WCF Custom Delegation/Authentication without Kerberos

    - by MichaelGG
    I'm building a simple WCF service, probably exposed via HTTPS, using NTLM security. Since not all users are going to be capable of using the service directly, we're writing a simple web front-end for the service. Users will auth with HTML to the web front-end. What we want is a way to delegate the user of the web site all the way to the WCF service. I understand Kerberos delegation can do this, but that's not available to us. What I want to do is make the web front-end account a specially trusted account, so that if a request hits the WCF service authenticated as "DOMAIN\WebApp", we read a WCF message header containing the real identity, then switch the principal to that and continue as normal. Is there any "simple" way of achieving this? Should I give up entirely on this idea, and instead make users "sign-in" to the WCF app and then do complete custom auth? The WCF extensibility and security options seem so vast, I'd like to get a heads up on which path to start heading down.

    Read the article

  • Active Directory and NTLM Authentication

    - by Alkersan
    Im writing an IIS Application, which manages AD users. For this purpose Ive configured site to use Negitiate AuthenticationProvider, and everything works. I wonder, is NTLM suitable for operations with Active Directory (such as creating user accounts)? Or AD accepts only Kerberos authentication?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >