> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com]
> > From: Pete Thomas [ptho...@hpti.com] > > 1) for authentication: depend upon mod_ssl configured with an > > appropriate SSLVerifyClient option. > > [i.e. decline to authenticate a user if no client cert was passed; be > > configurable to fail or warn > > stridently if a client cert was passed but "SSLVerifyClient > > optional_no_ca" is in use] > With you here, the big descision is to whether impersonate > basic auth or to run before it. I'm leaning against impersonating basic auth. Basic is quick to 401 with note_basic_auth_failure headers if it hasn't received a basic auth header. I don't want that; certificate authentication is a different beast. The nearerst equivalent in the certificate-based paradigm to what Basic does would be to tear down the SSL session and send back a client directive retry the original client request. When entering a password, users make typographical mistakes, and Basic Auth is set up to let them try again. I think for cetrificates this would be a terrible idea--if a client doesn't present a valid certificate the first time, they're not likely to come up with a valid one later. This is why partitioning this into a new authentication type makes sense to me. Done right, we set "AuthCertAuthoritative off," and the user can fall back to basic auth. This would behave as it always does without any "pollution" from the certificate authorization process. > > 2) for authorization: like mod_authnz_ldap, support dn, group [to > > include nested group], attribute, > > and filter require directives > disagree here, why/where are you going to query this stuff? > Why not just use it in conjunction with LDAP authz? I would love to use LDAP authz. The problem is that as a "dual-provider" of both authn and authz, there is some tight coupling between phases. So long as mod_authnz_ldap won't weigh in against a user's authentication if the current auth provider isn't Basic, but mod_authz_ldap will work if Requre ldap-* directives exist. My other "side finding" was that the AUTHENTICATE_* variables get populated during authentication, not authorization. I still need those values if we are using mod_authnz_ldap only for authz. > > 3) provide the same flexibility as mod_authnz_ldap with respect to > > configuring the LDAP connection > > and working with various LDAP libraries > -1 if it were going into the actual Apache distribution! Would you be +1 if we could do this by actually USING mod_authnz_ldap [as I contemplate above], with whatever minimally invasive changes [if/as required] to allow a "Cert" auth provider to use the module [not changing any of its behaviors as a Basic provider]. > > 4) be configurable to work with users' existing LDAP schemas without > > requiring changes in the directory. > > sounds reasonable unless you're drawing a contrast with the current LDAP auth > modules. Not drawing a contrast with the core. This is a problem I've had with other 3rd-party, non-distro modules. They point the right direction, but in a couple of cases they didn't have the flexibility to use alternate schemas. For example, mod_authnz_ldap lets you create arrays of group member attribute names to augment or override the default member and uniqueMember. 3rd-party modules often expect a "set" schema. My goal here is to make something that others can use, not just solve my own problem. In enterprises, you frequently have to live with the directory you're given--you don't get to "roll your own." > I think "AuthType cert" is reasonable as long as you can demonstrate using > the the traditional authz providers. Agreed. I'll think about what test cases are appropriate to demonstrate functonality without impacting compatibility.
