Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but I need to understand this:
You've probably all heard about this new attack several times by now. Just
to confirm what's already been stated - this attack only affects HTTP
browsers
that deliberately break the TLS handshake protocol to allow using
On 26/2/2012 1:22 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
It seems to me that it would require to use regex *in a filter* and
then group.expand based on the results. But is this possible? Any
alternatives?
Hmm, no one?
Let me re-phrase: Can we express the following three statements using
ONE
On 26/2/2012 1:22 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
It seems to me that it would require to use regex *in a filter* and
then group.expand based on the results. But is this possible? Any
alternatives?
Hmm, no one?
Let me re-phrase: Can we express the following three statements using
ONE
On 26/2/2012 1:22 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
It seems to me that it would require to use regex *in a filter* and
then group.expand based on the results. But is this possible? Any
alternatives?
Hmm, no one?
Let me re-phrase: Can we express the following three statements using
ONE
On 26/2/2012 1:22 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
It seems to me that it would require to use regex *in a filter* and
then group.expand based on the results. But is this possible? Any
alternatives?
Hmm, no one?
Let me re-phrase: Can we express the following three statements using
ONE
On 26/2/2012 1:22 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
It seems to me that it would require to use regex *in a filter* and
then group.expand based on the results. But is this possible? Any
alternatives?
Hmm, no one?
Let me re-phrase: Can we express the following three statements using
On 06/01/2012 21:29, Chris Jacobs wrote:
Your example shows only 2 pwdFailureTime entries and your policy indicates
pwdMaxFailure: 3.
Hi Chris,
No matter how many failed attempts I make, it never appears as locked:
I now have:
pwdFailureTime: 20120106193928Z
pwdFailureTime:
I just recently noticed 'input error=-2' when running in debug mode, and in my
logs (loglevel sync shell stats ber conns). It seems to occur (always) when
the connection it closed. Anyone know what might cause this? Is it anything I
should be concerned with? I am not sure when this
On Thursday, 15 April 2010 15:38:05 Joe Friedeggs wrote:
I need to build a Red Hat rpm for the latest OpenLDAP release. I am
looking for spec file, howto page, or anything else that might speed up
this project. Any advice/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
There is also:
http
On Thursday, 15 April 2010 15:38:05 Joe Friedeggs wrote:
I need to build a Red Hat rpm for the latest OpenLDAP release. I am
looking for spec file, howto page, or anything else that might speed up
this project. Any advice/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
There is also:
http
The e-mail thread seems to have wandered a bit, hoping I am replying to the
correct one.
I've tested both methods, ACL vs 'syncrepl search filter', both seem to work
well for me. I agree with Andrew's point that controlling this via the ACLs on
the provider is more secure (in my case).
Is it possible to replicate, on a slave, two branches of the DIT (only)? I
have several instances of LDAP running on servers throughout the world.
Connection to some of these from our support location is not dependable. I
want to do something similar to this:
Main LDAP (here, master):
On 03/30/10 18:36, Joe Friedeggs wrote:
Is it possible to replicate, on a slave, two branches of the DIT (only)? I
have several instances of LDAP running on servers throughout the world.
Connection to some of these from our support location is not dependable. I
want to do something
I am working (with RH via Dell support) to solve an issue (that I believe to be
a pam_ldap issue). The problem is that the password policy control messaging
does not occur when I set 'pam_password md5', thus the Linux client never knows
that the password expires.
They have informed me that
I am having an issue with my 'chain' bind password getting changed instead of
the user's password.
In a Red Hat Linux environment, running OpenLDAP 2.3.43(-3.el5 RPM from RH), I
am using a master-slave setup, with chaining (as opposed to referral) as a
method to allow users to change
15 matches
Mail list logo
