Re: [RADIATOR] AuthRADSEC and radsecproxy are incompatible!

2013-07-15 Thread Karl Gaissmaier
Hello,

Am 15.07.2013 07:47, schrieb Stefan Winter:
 Hello,

 Maybe someone can trigger the authors of radsecproxy too, to start
 implementing Proxy-State RFC 2865 conform when *generating* responses.
 Seems it makes everthing right on proxying but not on generating
 packets.

 Status-Server is defined in RFC5997. It uses a distinct command-code -
 it's not an Access-Request, it's Status-Server. So all the rules of an
 Access-Request and corresponding responses are not relevant.

 In particular, the attribute Proxy-State is not expected to be in there.
 See section 5 of that RFC.

 Adding to that, there is also no reason to use Proxy-State at all
 because Radiator does not act as proxy - it's acting as a simple RADIUS
 Client, sending an initial request to some other server. Proxy-State (in
 Access-Requests) only comes into play when a server *receives* a packet
 from downstream, then sees that it needs to be sent elsewhere still, and
 then *forwards* it. Only then does it add Proxy-State. None of this is
 true with Status-Server; and proxying Status-Server packets is
 prohibited in section 4.4 of that same RFC.

this may be true for Status-Server but not for the Access-Rejects 
generated by the radsecproxy. This has to be corrected by radsecproxy.

And yes, Radiator AuthRADSEC has to fix the problem with Status-Server.
Both together are incompatible but often used together in eduroam.

Greetings
Charly

-- 
Karl Gaissmaier
Universität Ulm / Germany

___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator


Re: [RADIATOR] Radiator and radsecproxy, status-server and failover algo, one step forward

2013-07-15 Thread A . L . M . Buxey
Hi,

 1272017248108...@wlan.mnc001.mcc262.3gppnetwork.org

3gppnetwork realms are invalid. ..just like hotmail, gmail, yahoo etc -
until a notice comes from eduroam stating that these realms now have agreed 
relationship, they are public realms and not within the private scheme of 
eduroam.


 RFC 5997, saying that Status-Server MUST NOT be proxied and therefore
 the Proxy-State attribut isn't allowed.

status-server musnt be proxiedits only for the first-hop check of
a remote proxy and not the end target - but that surely isnt the issue?
a Status-Server message is easy to deal with - you just send something back
to show you are alive - RADIATOR has been sending a basic statts page back
for status-server queries to it for years.

alan
___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator


Re: [RADIATOR] Radiator and radsecproxy, status-server and failover algo, one step forward

2013-07-15 Thread Stefan Winter
Hi,

 status-server musnt be proxiedits only for the first-hop check of
 a remote proxy and not the end target - but that surely isnt the issue?
 a Status-Server message is easy to deal with - you just send something back
 to show you are alive - RADIATOR has been sending a basic statts page back
 for status-server queries to it for years.

This is about Status-Server requests *originating* from Radiator to
check another server's alive state. Radiator sends a Proxy-State in the
request (which is not supposed to be done), and then complains that it
doesn't get it back (which is only supposed to happen with
Access-Requests, not Status-Server).

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator

Re: [RADIATOR] AuthRADSEC and radsecproxy are incompatible!

2013-07-15 Thread Stefan Winter
Hi,

 this may be true for Status-Server but not for the Access-Rejects
 generated by the radsecproxy. This has to be corrected by radsecproxy.
 
 And yes, Radiator AuthRADSEC has to fix the problem with Status-Server.
 Both together are incompatible but often used together in eduroam.

Yes, the lack of returning Proxy-State when radsecproxy crafts its own
Rejects is definitely a problem of radsecproxy; it violates RFC2865,
section 5.33:

 This Attribute is available to be sent by a proxy server to
  another server when forwarding an Access-Request and MUST be
  returned unmodified in the Access-Accept, Access-Reject or
  Access-Challenge.

I've sent a notice to the radsecproxy mailing list, notifying them of
the problem. I'm hoping to see a next release with a proper fix.

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator

Re: [RADIATOR] Radiator and radsecproxy, status-server and failover algo, one step forward

2013-07-15 Thread Karl Gaissmaier
Hi,

Am 15.07.2013 09:15, schrieb a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk:
 Hi,

 1272017248108...@wlan.mnc001.mcc262.3gppnetwork.org

 3gppnetwork realms are invalid. ..just like hotmail, gmail, yahoo etc -
 until a notice comes from eduroam stating that these realms now have agreed
 relationship, they are public realms and not within the private scheme of 
 eduroam.

thats's not the point, I had (again) a wrong example choosen.

Some users have just typos in their realms, an endpoint eduroam SP
can not handle all typos, we proxy it upstream. If the upstream
Rejects it, it should not strip the Proxy-State Attribut.


 RFC 5997, saying that Status-Server MUST NOT be proxied and therefore
 the Proxy-State attribut isn't allowed.

 status-server musnt be proxiedits only for the first-hop check of
 a remote proxy and not the end target - but that surely isnt the issue?
 a Status-Server message is easy to deal with - you just send something back
 to show you are alive - RADIATOR has been sending a basic statts page back
 for status-server queries to it for years.

Radiator doesn't proxy the Status-Server requests, he generates it and
has a wrong scheme to deal with the limited 8-Bits of Request
Identifiers.

Again:

1.)Radiator has to fix AuthRADSEC. The user has to choose to use
extended-Ids in the Proxy-State Attribut if the upstream proxy
will handle this. By default it should use 8 Bit Identifiers.

2.)radsecproxy has to fix the self generated Access-Rejects.
If a Proxy-State Attribut was present in the Access-Request, the
generated Access-Reject must copy this attribut and send it back.

Best Regards
 Charly


-- 
Karl Gaissmaier
Universität Ulm / Germany
___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator


Re: [RADIATOR] AuthRADSEC and radsecproxy are incompatible!

2013-07-15 Thread Karl Gaissmaier
Hello,

Am 15.07.2013 09:27, schrieb Stefan Winter:
 Hi,

 this may be true for Status-Server but not for the Access-Rejects
 generated by the radsecproxy. This has to be corrected by radsecproxy.

 And yes, Radiator AuthRADSEC has to fix the problem with Status-Server.
 Both together are incompatible but often used together in eduroam.

 Yes, the lack of returning Proxy-State when radsecproxy crafts its own
 Rejects is definitely a problem of radsecproxy; it violates RFC2865,
 section 5.33:

  This Attribute is available to be sent by a proxy server to
another server when forwarding an Access-Request and MUST be
returned unmodified in the Access-Accept, Access-Reject or
Access-Challenge.

 I've sent a notice to the radsecproxy mailing list, notifying them of
 the problem. I'm hoping to see a next release with a proper fix.

Thanks, you got the point and saved my day!

Best Regards
 Charly
-- 
Karl Gaissmaier
Universität Ulm / Germany

___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator


Re: [RADIATOR] Radiator and radsecproxy, status-server and failover algo, one step forward

2013-07-15 Thread A . L . M . Buxey
Hi,

 1.)Radiator has to fix AuthRADSEC. The user has to choose to use
extended-Ids in the Proxy-State Attribut if the upstream proxy
will handle this. By default it should use 8 Bit Identifiers.
 
 2.)radsecproxy has to fix the self generated Access-Rejects.
If a Proxy-State Attribut was present in the Access-Request, the
generated Access-Reject must copy this attribut and send it back.

I agree with both points. both servers are doing something wrong..and
the interop causes issues. 

alan
___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator


Re: [RADIATOR] AuthRADSEC and radsecproxy are incompatible!

2013-07-15 Thread Ralf Paffrath
Hi,

anyway it's a bit proprietary that Radiator ignores the correct identifier in 
an Access-Reject packet.

The Identifier is also part of RFC2865:
Identifier
  The Identifier field is one octet, and aids in matching requests
  and replies.  The RADIUS server can detect a duplicate request if
  it has the same client source IP address and source UDP port and
  Identifier within a short span of time.

Freeradius has never complained about these Access-Reject packets generated by 
radsecproxy. 
Because these packages can be matched by the identifier. 

Also there is no doubt that radsexcproxy might violate RFC 2865 and Radiator 
violates RFC5997, 
it is always not very useful ignoring part of a standard header and insist on a 
Ext-Id to match an 
Access-Reject.

Best wishes
  Ralf
On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Karl Gaissmaier karl.gaissma...@uni-ulm.de wrote:

 Hello,
 
 Am 15.07.2013 09:27, schrieb Stefan Winter:
 Hi,
 
 this may be true for Status-Server but not for the Access-Rejects
 generated by the radsecproxy. This has to be corrected by radsecproxy.
 
 And yes, Radiator AuthRADSEC has to fix the problem with Status-Server.
 Both together are incompatible but often used together in eduroam.
 
 Yes, the lack of returning Proxy-State when radsecproxy crafts its own
 Rejects is definitely a problem of radsecproxy; it violates RFC2865,
 section 5.33:
 
  This Attribute is available to be sent by a proxy server to
   another server when forwarding an Access-Request and MUST be
   returned unmodified in the Access-Accept, Access-Reject or
   Access-Challenge.
 
 I've sent a notice to the radsecproxy mailing list, notifying them of
 the problem. I'm hoping to see a next release with a proper fix.
 
 Thanks, you got the point and saved my day!
 
 Best Regards
 Charly
 -- 
 Karl Gaissmaier
 Universität Ulm / Germany
 
 ___
 radiator mailing list
 radiator@open.com.au
 http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator

--
Verein zur Förderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes e.V.
Alexanderplatz 1, D - 10178 Berlin
Tel.: 030 88 42 99 23
Fax: 030 88 42 99 70
http://www.dfn.de



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator

[RADIATOR] documentation typo at 13.1.33 DefineFormattedGlobalVarsystem

2013-07-15 Thread Karl Gaissmaier
Hi radiator team,

there is a missing whitespace in the documentation:

 13.1.33
 Variable names prefixed with GlobalVar:
 The attribute to be compared is taken from a GlobalVar. GlobalVar variables 
 can be set
 from the command line, or with the DefineFormattedGlobalVar parameter. This 
 can be
 useful for activating different sets of users in multiple instances of 
 Radiator.
 # In the config file:
 DefineFormattedGlobalVarsystem mysystem
 # in a users file:
 username Password=fred,GlobalVar:system=mysystem

Must be:

  DefineFormattedGlobalVar system mysystem

Best Regards
  Charly
___
radiator mailing list
radiator@open.com.au
http://www.open.com.au/mailman/listinfo/radiator