SYSKEY2. Request For Comments

[Matthew Geddes]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Interesting point which I hadn't considered. For LDAP I would say
> > that the entry really ought to be ACL'd anyhow (they are here at my
> > site) which is similar to having a seperate password-protected database
> > file. Hmm. NIS and SQL I don't know about though.
>
> and if you don't _have_ acls in your ldap implementation?  or if you don't
> _realiase_ that ldap doesn't have any security?
>

Which LDAP implementation would that be? I'm no expert, but I haven't seen one
without ACLs (I actually thought it was part of the LDAP standard).

>
> i don't want administrators bitching that their passwords were sent
> in-the-clear, and thinking it's our fault.
>
> i don't want a security report on bugtraq, either, bitching that we didn't
> document that passwords are sent in-the-clear for ldap / samba

Document it then.

>

I would personally keep the LDAP service running on the Samba PDC (where possible) to
cut down on extra network packets that don't need to be there.

You wouldn't have to worry about the Samba->LDAP password thing.

When is the password sent in the clear? Or are you referring to the "encrypted"
password? I agree that sending this kind of stuff over any network is not good, but
there are things that can be done.

My 2c,

Matt