-Original Message-
From: Michal Židek [mailto:mzi...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 11:57 AM
To: End-user discussions about the System Security Services Daemon
Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: [SSSD][AD][GPO] GPOs Found but Not Applied
On 05/05/2017 06:38 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 0
On 05/05/2017 06:38 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
On 05/05/2017 06:21 PM, ledfo...@umkc.edu wrote:
No, that's a GPO for some update Pre-Deployment systems. It's
inherited further up the OU tree. The Security Filtering on it would
prevent our Linux test system from reading it.
The GPO I'm specifical
On 05/05/2017 06:21 PM, ledfo...@umkc.edu wrote:
No, that's a GPO for some update Pre-Deployment systems. It's inherited further
up the OU tree. The Security Filtering on it would prevent our Linux test
system from reading it.
The GPO I'm specifically using for testing is
"{8C43AC42-0B5E-4703
No, that's a GPO for some update Pre-Deployment systems. It's inherited further
up the OU tree. The Security Filtering on it would prevent our Linux test
system from reading it.
The GPO I'm specifically using for testing is
"{8C43AC42-0B5E-4703-AB0C-E25460C9ED29}". SSSD starts reading that GPO
On 05/05/2017 05:59 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
On 05/05/2017 05:27 PM, Ledford, Donald wrote:
-Original Message-
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 14:14:01 +0200
Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: [SSSD][AD][GPO] GPOs Found but Not Applied
To: End-user discussions about the System Security Services Daemon
On 05/05/2017 05:27 PM, Ledford, Donald wrote:
-Original Message-
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 14:14:01 +0200
Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: [SSSD][AD][GPO] GPOs Found but Not Applied
To: End-user discussions about the System Security Services Daemon
Reply-to: End-user discussions about the Syst
-Original Message-
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 14:14:01 +0200
Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: [SSSD][AD][GPO] GPOs Found but Not Applied
To: End-user discussions about the System Security Services Daemon
Reply-to: End-user discussions about the System Security Services
Daemon
From: Michal Židek
O
Thanks, how SSSD recognizes that GC does not have Posix attrs?
Reason I am asking is that SSSD fails to recognize users and at times where
SSSD is connected to GC.
I have RH support case opened for this.
>-Original Message-
>From: Jakub Hrozek [mailto:jhro...@redhat.com]
>Sent: Friday, Ma
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:02:44AM +, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Simple question:
> In case we not use ldap_id_mapping, does SSSD require posix attrs in GC or
> not?
Not require, but would open a connection to each domain DC instead of
just a single connection to a GC.
On 05/05/2017 02:10 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
On 05/04/2017 06:37 PM, Ledford, Donald wrote:
Hello,
We've got a RHEL 6.9 system in testing for AD integration. We have to
use 6.x due to compatibility issues with software that will eventually
be deployed to the system so moving to RHEL 7.3 isn't
On 05/04/2017 06:37 PM, Ledford, Donald wrote:
Hello,
We've got a RHEL 6.9 system in testing for AD integration. We have to
use 6.x due to compatibility issues with software that will eventually
be deployed to the system so moving to RHEL 7.3 isn't an option.
Currently we're working on getting
Hi all,
Simple question:
In case we not use ldap_id_mapping, does SSSD require posix attrs in GC or not?
Thanks,
Ondrej
-
The information contained in this e-mail and in any attachments is confidential
and is designated solely for the attention of the intended recipient(s). If you
are not
12 matches
Mail list logo
