And, I just want to say, this is absolutely outstanding work for a very
inclusive 'first shot.' Well done!

Hopefully we'll get a lot of additives. One thing I've been doing is a lot
of 389/IPA Troubleshooting as of late (have a broken setup we'll be
replacing soon, but it won't happen overnight), and maybe we should add
some generic LDAP search/modify commands that are related.

- bjs

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 15:48 Fabian Thorns <[email protected] wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> it took some time to follow up, but we finally have a draft for the new
> LPIC-300 objectives:
>
>   https://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LPIC-3_300_Objectives_V3.0
>
> It would be great if you could review the draft and share your opinions
> here. Nothing is set in stone yet, so make sure to bring up any concerns so
> we can finalize the objectives soon.
>
> Fabian
>
> PS: Before you ask, there will be some new regarding the other LPIC-3
> exams soon, too.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:53 AM Fabian Thorns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> it seems we agree to drop most of the topics 390 and 391 from the 300
>> exam, move over 326.3 (User Management) and 326.4 (FreeIPA) from 303 and
>> add some more FreeIPA and SSSD.
>>
>> We currently cover the LDAP basics (including ldapmodify) in 202, so we
>> could expect candidates to handle LDAP in general. Would you still cover it
>> in the 300 exam?
>>
>> Assuming that we don't (and correct me if I am wrong here), what do you
>> think of a potential objectives outline similar to this one? The
>> xx*-topics/objectives would be the new structure, the 39*-objectives show
>> where the current objectives would be placed in the new objectives. The old
>> objectives still contain their original weight, I've added a '-' (and I
>> think no '+') where I'd like to propose a change in weight.
>>
>> = Topic xx1: FreeIPA Domain Management (weight: 15)
>>
>> xx1.1 FreeIPA Concepts and Architecture (3)
>>         - Service
>>         - Replication topology
>>         - Domain Levels
>>         - DNS
>>         - Awareness of PKI
>>
>> xx1.2 FreeIPA Domain and IDM Server Management (weight: 3)
>>
>> xx1.3 FreeIPA User Management (weight: 3)
>>
>> xx1.4 FreeIPA Policies and Access Control (weight: 4)
>>
>> xx1.5 FreeIPA and Active Directory Integration (weight: 2)
>>         326.4 FreeIPA Installation and Samba Integration (weight: 4)
>>
>>
>> = Topic xx2: Linux Authentication (weight: 8)
>>
>> xx2.1 PAM and NSS Authentication (weight: 4)
>>         391.1 LDAP Integration with PAM and NSS (weight: 2-1)
>>         326.3 User Management and Authentication (weight: 5-3)
>>
>> xx2.2 SSSD Authentication and IPA Client Management (weight: 4)
>>
>>
>> = Topic xx3: Samba Basics (weight: 8)
>>
>> xx3.1 Samba Concepts and Architecture (weight: 2)
>>         392.1 Samba Concepts and Architecture (weight: 2)
>>
>> xx3.2 Samba Configuration and Tools (weight: 3)
>>         392.2 Configure Samba (weight: 4-1)
>>                 Add registry based configuration
>>
>> xx3.3 Samba Maintenance and Troubleshooting (weight: 3)
>>         392.3 Regular Samba Maintenance (weight: 2-0.5)
>>         392.4 Troubleshooting Samba (weight: 2-0.5)
>>
>>
>> = Topic xx4: Samba File and Printing Services (weight: 11)
>>
>> xx4.1 File Shares (weight: 3)
>>         393.1 File Services (weight: 4-1)
>>
>> xx4.2 Advanced Access Controll (weight: 3)
>>         393.2 Linux File System and Share/Service Permissions (weight: 3)
>>
>> xx4.3 Print Shares and Printing Drivers (weight: 2)
>>         393.3 Print Services (weight: 2)
>>
>> xx4.4 CIFS Integration (weight: 3)
>>         397.1 CIFS Integration (weight: 3)
>>                 Move smbmount and mount from 393.1 to 397.1
>>
>>
>> = Topic xx5: Samba Active Directory Services (weight: 15)
>>
>> xx5.1 AD Directory Maintenance / DC (weight: 4)
>>         395.2 Samba4 as an AD compatible Domain Controller (weight: 3)
>>         396.2 Active Directory Name Resolution (weight: 2-1)
>>
>> xx5.2 AD User Management (weight: 3)
>>         394.1 Managing User Accounts and Groups (weight: 4-1)
>>
>> xx5.3 AD Domain Membership (weight: 6)
>>         394.2 Authentication, Authorization and Winbind (weight: 5-1)
>>         395.3 Configure Samba as a Domain Member Server (weight: 3-1)
>>
>> xx5.4 Windows Client Management (weight: 2)
>>         397.2 Working with Windows Clients (weight: 2)
>>                 Add awareness and capacities of GPOs
>>
>>
>> = Drop:
>>
>>  - 391.2 Integrating LDAP with Active Directory and Kerberos (weight: 2)
>>  - 390.1 OpenLDAP Replication (weight: 3)
>>  - 390.2 Securing the Directory (weight: 3)
>>  - 390.3 OpenLDAP Server Performance Tuning (weight: 2)
>>  - 392.5 Internationalization (weight: 1)
>>  - 395.1 Samba as a PDC and BDC (weight: 3)
>>  - 396.1 NetBIOS and WINS (weight: 3)
>>
>> Sorry if this looks messy, I hope you're getting what I mean.
>>
>> As usual, this is in no way final, it's intended to feed the discussion.
>> Once we've put it in a proper share we will work out the details.
>>
>> Let me know what you'd like to see changed,
>>
>> Fabian
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:57 PM Dirk Streubel <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i think Bryan is right. In the 300 exam must be the 389 Server and or
>>> the FreeIPA Part.
>>>
>>> After the decision from Red Hat and Suse not to support OpenLDAP in the
>>> future it makes sense to enlarge the exam with this two points.
>>>
>>> Another Point is 395.3 : Joining Samba to an existing NT4 domain
>>>
>>> In my opinion this point can be canceled. In my work i doesn't see any
>>> NT4 domain any more.
>>>
>>> Perhaps in the world are some NT$ Domains but i think this is a handful
>>> of domains. And how big is the chance to met them?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 16.10.2018 um 22:29 schrieb Bryan Smith:
>>>
>>> Fabian Thorns <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we will have some fundamental discussions about this exam; i.e.
>>>> regarding the relevance of NT4 domains, of the amount of Windows knowledge
>>>> covered in the exam, about the real relevance of FreeIPA
>>>>
>>>
>>> First off:  The "iPlanet lineage" (389) "Real World"
>>>
>>> I've been quiet since my initial barking, since LPI ignored the 2005+
>>> open sourced version 8 of iPlanet, aka "389 Server," since inception of the
>>> level 3 program, so I don't know where to start.  100% of the Enterprise
>>> environments (several dozen) I've worked in (going back to even the very
>>> late '90s) have all been iPlanet-based, whether they were all, newer Red
>>> Hat Directory Server (RHDS) from the get-go, or they migrated from Sun One
>>> or another iPlanet implementation when Oracle shutdown the product line
>>> earlier this decade (one was even Netscape from the get-go).
>>>
>>> Multi-master replication is pretty important to Enterprises, which is
>>> why everyone still runs 389 -- unless they had eDirectory, of course, or
>>> just didn't care to centralize IETF/POSIX attributes at all, some don't.
>>> Some even just use NIS on loopback, using a configuration management system
>>> to 'push down' the maps to each system.  And all of the OpenLDAP Server
>>> environments I've worked in have been very small implements.  That said ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Secondly:  Schema is what is important
>>>
>>> I really don't care what people run.  What I care about is schema for
>>> centralizing SSH public keys (w/SSSD sss_ssh_authorizedkeys), Sudoers,
>>> Automounter maps (especially w/SSSD caching, chucking legacy LDAP
>>> integration), SELinux rules (this only applies to SELinux enforcing
>>> systems, of course), etc...  I live in a world of SSSD as standard, and
>>> I've yet to meet a single Debian or Ubuntu sysadmin that doesn't praise
>>> SSSD once they deploy it for the first time, so it's not just us Red
>>> Fedoras either.
>>>
>>> Because once you have SSSD, you want to take advantage of all of its
>>> capabilities that can be stored in the LDAP schema.  E.g., in the last few
>>> financial services industry (FSI) enterprises I worked in, centralizing SSH
>>> public keys made multi-factor authentication (MFA) painless as the user
>>> would get the key challenge, followed by another -- whether password,
>>> additional certificate, etc... -- but still only got no more than one
>>> prompt (if any in the case of key + certificate).
>>>
>>> Hence the second point.  ;)
>>>
>>> So, that all said ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Third:  No more AD-IDMU -- either nothing, proprietary or AD Forest
>>> Trusts
>>>
>>> Microsoft deprecated ActiveDirectory Identity Management for UNIX (IDMU)
>>> in Windows Server 2012R2, and it's utterly removed as of 2016.  IDMU was
>>> really basic in the first place, compared to various LDAP schema out there
>>> for managing all sorts of things, but it was something.  But now that it's
>>> gone, it that means enterprises have two (2) choices for centralizing
>>> IETF/POSIX attributes with Windows/ActiveDirectory integration ...
>>>
>>>  0)  Nothing - don't centralize, enumerate at the end-system (won't pass
>>> an audit)
>>>  1)  Proprietary - install a proprietary solution with costly CALs
>>> (Canonical punts things here)
>>>  2)  IPA - the AD Forest Trust FTW
>>>
>>> I really don't understand how we can cover Samba, but ignore all of the
>>> work done between the IPA-SSSD and Samba teams to address all sorts of
>>> issues in Samba that IPA already addressed first.  (HINT: virtually all of
>>> Red Hat's Samba contributors are on IPA-SSSD, and solved things in the
>>> former, then ported over to the latter)  Multi-domain enumeration for
>>> starters, which the IPA teams added to SSSD, then worked into Samba.
>>> Especially in a world where almost everything is Kerberosized too ... which
>>> IPA brings to-the-table, and not in a way that is only useful for Windows
>>> services, like Samba.
>>>
>>> So, to recap ... IPA brings all of the benefits of iPlanet legacy over
>>> other implementations (#1), with the 'built-in' schema that enterprises
>>> want (#2) and then offers MIT Kerberos with MS Kerberos compatibility,
>>> offering those nice, External AD Forest Trust options for dealing with the
>>> pesky lack of integration now that AD-IDMU is gone.  So IPA Domains can
>>> access AD Domain resources (put IPA User Groups in AD Domain Local Groups),
>>> and vice-versa, right down to those principals and ID mappings across
>>> REALMs (domains).
>>>
>>> The entire pipe dream of non-Windows and Windows using the same schema
>>> was always just that -- separate AD Forests are required because the schema
>>> differs since IETF/POSIX cannot use Windows/NTuser attributes, and
>>> vice-versa.  This is just the reality, and why a Samba DC in an AD Domain
>>> was never going to be able to address the reality of what end-IETF/POSIX
>>> systems.  This tri-fecta also cleans up a lot of hacking, messes and other
>>> things when systems are assuming things, instead of actually seeing the
>>> full principals across REALMs, along with storing security, etc... -- e.g.,
>>> I hate hacking up rpc.idmapd (don't get me started).  And then IPA brings a
>>> host of other features.
>>>
>>> I mentioned MFA before, and IPA also offers TOTP or HOTP and the option
>>> for 3rd party integration with FreeRADIUS built-in.  And there are yet
>>> other features.  So ...
>>>
>>> At some point we're really looking at either breaking out all of these
>>> features one-by-one ... or just covering IPA.  I'd rather just cover IPA,
>>> especially since Red Hat is building everything around it ... along with
>>> Ansible Tower for remediation and validation ... and not just for Red Hat
>>> products, or even OSes ... but networking equipment too.  I know people
>>> look at IPA-SSSD as Red Hat-only, just like they did 389-RHDS before it.
>>>
>>> LPI can continue to do that if it wants.  But IPA-SSSD is being adopted
>>> in a lot of environments.  One doesn't have to be a LDAP or Kerberos expert
>>> anymore in an IPA environment, and has the bonus of addressing
>>> inter-operability in _both_ directions with AD, not just one.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bryan J Smith  -  http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
>>> E-mail:  b.j.smith at ieee.org  or  me at bjsmith.me
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lpi-examdev mailing 
>>> [email protected]http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lpi-examdev mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fabian Thorns <[email protected]> GPG: F1426B12
>> Director of Certification Development, Linux Professional Institute
>>
>
>
> --
> Fabian Thorns <[email protected]> GPG: F1426B12
> Director of Certification Development, Linux Professional Institute
> _______________________________________________
> lpi-examdev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev

Reply via email to