RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-12 Thread Leighton Man
And many requests later you ask about it: ++? if (control:Tmp-String-0 == ldap-student) (Attribute control:Tmp-String-0 was not found) .. and it's not there. Of course it's not, since it wasn't set during processing of that Access-Request but much earlier in the exchange. Obvious

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-11 Thread Leighton Man
Update a server-side attribute when you use the module: update control { Tmp-String-0 = ldap-student } then in post-auth: if (control:Tm-String-0 == ldap-student) { ... } I'm really grateful for all your help but it still doesn't work and after hours

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-11 Thread tnt
And I get: ++[eap] returns ok +- entering group post-auth {...} ++[exec] returns noop ++? if (control:Tmp-String-0 == ldap-student) (Attribute control:Tmp-String-0 was not found) Sending Access-Accept of id 129 to 10.127.240.217 port 1645 Towards the beginning of the debug output is:

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-11 Thread Leighton Man
Can you post the whole debug, not just snipetts. Are these from the same or from different requests in the exchange? Perhaps you need use_tunneled_reply rather than this. Here's the complete debug (excluding the server start-up messages). There's rather a lot of it which is why I tried to

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-11 Thread tnt
Here's the complete debug (excluding the server start-up messages). There's rather a lot of it which is why I tried to post the bits relevant to what I'm trying (rather unsuccessfully :-) ) to understand. rad_recv: Access-Request packet from host 10.127.240.217 port 1645, id=36, length=148 ..

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-10 Thread Leighton Man
Now I'm trying to return different reply attributes depending on Active Directory group membership and restrict which groups can authenticate. Ldap lookups against the active directory root fail with operation error. Reconfiguring Active Directory is not a viable option so I have to

Re: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-10 Thread Alan DeKok
Leighton Man wrote: I've upgraded to 2.1.3 but, sorry, I'm really struggling with the concepts. I can't do if Ldap-Group because there is no container in Active Directory above staff and student to query. What I think I need is: if ladp_staff returns ok { update reply{

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-10 Thread Leighton Man
see man unlang. The syntax and examples are documented. Read it many times. The problem is not the documentation, which is great, but my understanding which isn't! I'm working on it but finding it heavy going. ... ldap_staff if (ok) { update reply { ...

Re: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-10 Thread Alan DeKok
Leighton Man wrote: Logic now working correctly - Many thanks Final problem is to return reply attributes in the access accept message. As a test I added Reply-Message := User is staff in the update reply section and the server duly added it to the next access challenge message. I assume I

Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-06 Thread Leighton Man
Hi, I'm new to freeradius (3 weeks experience) and mailing lists (second attempt) so please have patience. I have freeradius 1.1.7 (prebuilt package) on Solaris 10 configured to authenticate against Active Directory using ntlm-auth. All working OK. Now I'm trying to return different reply

Re: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-06 Thread Nicolas Goutte
Am 06.03.2009 um 12:20 schrieb Leighton Man: Hi, I'm new to freeradius (3 weeks experience) and mailing lists (second attempt) so please have patience. I have freeradius 1.1.7 (prebuilt package) on Solaris 10 configured to authenticate against Active Directory using ntlm-auth. All working

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-06 Thread Leighton Man
I'm new to freeradius (3 weeks experience) and mailing lists (second attempt) so please have patience. I have freeradius 1.1.7 (prebuilt package) on Solaris 10 configured to authenticate against Active Directory using ntlm-auth. All working OK. Now I'm trying to return different reply

Re: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-06 Thread Alan DeKok
Leighton Man wrote: Many thanks for this. I'm using 1.1.7 because it's available as a pre-built package on solaris for both sparc and x86 architectures. The idea is to get freeradius configured and working as fast as possible so it can be demo'd to management (I'm trying to retire Cisco

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-06 Thread Leighton Man
Huh? It compiles on 3-4 different Solaris boxes that I have access to. Did you run make from the TOP directory, or by cd'ing to src/lib? Alan DeKok. Tried gmake from the top directory and gcc -g -O2 -D_REENTRANT -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -Wall -D_GNU_SOURCE -DNDEBUG -D_LIBRADIUS

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-06 Thread tnt
Is there any way to do what I want without upgrading? You can try users file: DEFAULT Ldap-Group == staff some reply DEFAULT Ldap-Group == student some other reply DEFAULT Auth-Type := Reject That should be at the end of the users file (ie. anything

Re: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-06 Thread Alan DeKok
Leighton Man wrote: Tried gmake from the top directory and gcc -g -O2 -D_REENTRANT -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -Wall -D_GNU_SOURCE -DNDEBUG -D_LIBRADIUS -I/export/home/cmsxljm/freeradius-server-2.1.3/src -c dict.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/dict.o (copy and paste from the gmake output) from the

RE: Config. Help please - ldap and Active Directory

2009-03-06 Thread Leighton Man
Hmm... would it be possible to have to give *more* output? i.e. start from a fresh directory: $ tar -zxf freeradius-server-2.1.3.tar.gz $ cd freeradius-server 2.1.3 $ ./configure $ gmake And show the errors (not the dozens of lines saying building foo, or the last dozen lines saying