Thanks for your reply. Your question prompted me to check the docs again, and I see there is the AuthLDAPRemoteUserIsDN option. I hadn't realised that possibility before. I'll try it. Requiring our users to enter their username in FQD isn't going to work. But if AuthLDAPRemoteUserIsDN works in conjunction with the Subversion authorisation file mechanism, that will work (albeit with some effort to reformat our existing authorisation file and the custom web-based admin tool we have to modify it).

That would make options 3 and 4 feasible. Though option 4 has its own "other problem".

Regards,
Craig McQueen

Michele Mase' wrote:
Does the option 3 work changing the username from the form domain\username into [EMAIL PROTECTED] (domain in fqd form i.e. example.com <http://example.com>)?
Regards Michele

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Craig McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

    My company (in Australia) has a working Apache server on its
    Intranet -- incidentally, for serving Subversion. It's on Windows
    2003 and it's set up for authentication using the SSPI module.
    Currently Apache 2.0 but I want to upgrade to 2.2 to support the
    latest Subversion. We are also using a Subversion authorisation
    file that checks the username (provided by the authentication
    mechanism) against path access controls. The usernames are
    currently in the form LOCALDOMAIN\localuser.

    It's a global company and we now want to allow remote branches to
    access the server. That means we want to extend authentication
    somehow. I'm looking at the options but coming across obstacles
    for every one. Here's what I've found. Note, I'm only really
    interested in options that will work for Apache 2.2, since version
    2.2 is needed for any upgrade of Subversion. I'm testing on a
    Windows XP PC running Apache 2.2.10. <http://2.2.10.>

    Option 1: Create local-domain usernames for remote people
    Not ideal due to security policy concerns.

    Option 2: SSPI plus password file
    "Just doesn't work". Apache 2.2 changed the way authentication
    works. The SSPI module still works by itself in 2.2, but it
    doesn't cooperate with other authentication methods (as far as I
    can tell). Even though this reference says how it can be done:
    
http://tortoisesvn.net/docs/nightly/TortoiseSVN_en/help-onepage.html#tsvn-serversetup-apache-6
    When I configure it as said, the SSPI authentication continues to
    function but the password authentication never succeeds.

    Option 3: LDAP plus password file
    It works. However, the LDAP module doesn't have a concept of
    "domains" so the usernames passed on to the Subversion file-based
    authorisation are in plain form, without any "LOCALDOMAIN\"
    prepended. This means that the authorisation file would need all
    "LOCALDOMAIN\" removed. Note that the password file can have
    usernames in the form e.g. REMOTEDOMAIN\remoteuser, so it is
    possible to avoid duplicates between the two systems.

    Option 4: LDAP lookup of LOCALDOMAIN plus LDAP lookup of
    REMOTEDOMAIN (plus LDAP lookup of REMOTEDOMAIN2 etc)
    It looks as though it should be possible. However, I can't get the
    LDAP lookup of REMOTEDOMAIN to work (even by itself). It appears
    to be related to the fact that the REMOTEDOMAIN LDAP directory has
    Japanese characters in the "Base DN". I'm pretty sure the
    httpd.conf file has the Japanese characters specified in proper
    RFC 2255 format. So I think there is a problem in the LDAP
    authentication module in properly sending the queries with UTF-8
    content in the base DN. The error.log file says
    "[ldap_search_ext_s() for user failed][No Such Object]" which
    seems to indicate that the LDAP server isn't getting a valid base
    DN. Note that as in option 3, there is no concept of "domains".
    The authorisation file would not be able to systematically
    distinguish between users from LOCALDOMAIN and users from
    REMOTEDOMAIN. If we had identical usernames in the two domains, we
    wouldn't be able to separate them for authorisation.

    So, we're currently stuck on all our options, for a variety of
    reasons. Any thoughts on this?

    Regards,
    Craig McQueen


Reply via email to