I accept at least partial responsibility for the strong language. I pushed for it as I believed this feature should be used sparingly at the time these docs were written.
There were a few things going through my head: 1) First, I was fearful that people simply did simple binds against ADAM in the clear (no SSL) and did not do a threat model. In the all else even case, I'd rather you stay more secure, and it's easier to keep a more secure bind on the table when you use non-simple, as it is typically done at the bind layer and not the connection layer. I am not advocating blind encryption of all connections, merely saying that I know most people don't do threat models and as such I'd take the security in the "best guess" case. 2) I was also fearful of the mgmt overhead of bind proxy objects. You need to create & maintain them, and provisioning is a traditionally non-trivial problem. Adamsync has helped some here, but remember, adamsync did not exist when this language was written. 3) Finally, I was slightly concerned about the auth situation on the box. A proxy bind results in a SID lookup call and a LogonUser() call, and one need assume they go off machine. Just some extra work for ADAM to do rather than other situations which might be more local and less remote work, but the devil is in the details here (what protocol is used, etc.). But the avg case is perhaps better, at least that was my hope. ;) So, that was my rationale. To answer your other question: > I have to wonder what is classified as a "special circumstances", since > I suppose they are all sort of special. I intended special to mean, circumstances where you don't have a better choice. Take that for what it's worth. ~Eric -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:12 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] ADAM bind Redirection with a NULL password Tony, I have to wonder what is classified as a "special circumstances", since I suppose they are all sort of special. I have used Bind Redirection with MIIS/IIFP for quite a few scenarios: Corportate Spinoff: We needed to split off a portion of our users into a new company, and an entirely new forest. To solve the issue of apps only binding to a single NC, we used MIIS to populate an ADAM instance that contained active users from both forests during the TSA. Corporate Acquisitions: Similar situation, where we needed to combine users into a single NC. Having more than 1 user domain, and an app that can ONLY bind to a single Domain/NC. Custom Schema extensions for an application that is not an enterprise class application. You may not want to extend AD for a small subset of users. Extend the ADAM schema for the application, but proxy the user authentication back to the main AD. It also helps with audit and compliance, where you are really only managing a single user principle, but proxying apps to it. Unfortunately, LDAP seems to be the defacto standard for applications. With that, simple bind seems to be the way of choice. I would say, many are Java apps where I think someone wrote a "howto" many years ago, and I keep seeing the same thing come in as "Authentication". Some big name apps from Lotus/IBM, Documentum all have/had issues with only pointing to a single NC, so I don't want to say it's only smaller developers. Many of the companies I've worked at, have had more than a single domain, so I am surprised that so many "enterprise" apps assume a single NC for authentication. I can't solve the problems at the app level, but I try to solve it at the centralized directory level. Thanks, Jef ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] ADAM bind Redirection with a NULL password > My impression from reading the on-line documentation is that the use of > ADAM Proxy Objects and bind redirection is frowned upon anyway. > > "Proxy users are designed for special circumstances and should only be > used as a last resort, when Windows principals cannot be used directly." > > and > > "ADAM bind redirection should be used only in special cases where an > application can perform a simple LDAP bind to ADAM but the application > still needs to associate the user with a security principal in Active > Directory." > > From > http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/7cfc8997-bab2-477 0-aff2-be424fd03cda1033.mspx?mfr=true > > Is there no way for the application to use the recommended alternative, > i.e. where ADAM receives a SASL bind request and forwards the request to > Active Directory? > > Tony > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "Jef Kazimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:17:39 -0500 > > Eric, > > The problem stems from lack of ability to modify the application to > correct > the behavior. If I had the ability to force this, I would simply require > null/blank not to be passed to the ADAM server from the application. > > I've been at odds about the DCR myself, for all the reasons you mentioned. > Yet, without the ability to control the applications, the only thing I can > control is the directory itself. Without a mechanism to disable such > behavior, I am without recourse unfortunately. > > So far, I've been able to avoid this problem, because the 2 apps I had > this > happen with, the developer was able to modify the authentication dialog. > I > have had other apps with other issuers, where modification was not > possible. > These did not suffer this poor design issue, but I wonder if I will get > such > an app eventually. I suppose I am just trying to solve a problem, I have > not been forced to solve by this method, which means it cane wait. > > I could go into how it would be nice to have enterprise application > minimum > standards, and application owners involve infrastructure staff BEFORE an > app > is purchased, instead of after when it doesn't work, but I won't :) > > Jef > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Fleischman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:48 PM > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] ADAM bind Redirection with a NULL password > > One solution would be to ACL all objects such that SELF can read them, > then have the app, after it has authenticated as the user, try and read > something on the user itself. This way you know you are in fact that > user (or someone else that has read access, which presumably won't work > as anonymous). > > In terms of your DCR...could such a bit be put in? I guess. But DCRs > that are filed with the intentional intent of going again an RFC > typically have a rough time getting through even with a very strong > business impact. And you have a workaround already in the app, and > another solution I mentioned above. Just setting expectations... > > ~Eric > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jef Kazimer > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 5:53 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] ADAM bind Redirection with a NULL password > > Since there has been talk of LDAP "Authentication" as of late, I figured > I'd > post my issue of poorly developed applications allowing a null password > to > an ADAM instance using Bind Redirection. > > http://jeftek.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F2042DC08607EF2!710.entry > > I'd be curious if a bit flip to shut down this possibility could be put > in > control of the directory Admin, instead of relying on the developers. > > Thanks, > > Jef Kazimer > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.activedir.org > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
