[389-users] Re: Wrong password hash algorithm returned

On 11/22/22 10:28, Julian Kippels wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> that's a nasty catch…
>
> On the one hand I think this is a nice feature to improve security,
> but on the other hand PBKDF2_SHA256 is the one algorithm that
> freeradius cannot cope with.
>
> I suppose there is no way to revert all changed hashes after I set
> "nsslapd-enable-upgrade-hash" to "off"? Other than to reinitialize all
> affected suffixes from the export of the old servers?


Indeed this is a bad side effect of the default value :(

If you need to urgently fix those new {PBKDF2_SHA256}, then reinit is
the way to go. Else you could change the default password storage to
SSHA and keep nsslapd-enable-upgrade-hash=on. So that it will revert, on
bind, to the SSHA hash.

thierry

>
> Julian
>
> Am 22.11.22 um 09:56 schrieb Thierry Bordaz:
>> Hi Julian,
>>
>> This is likely the impact of
>> https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/2480 that was introduced
>> in 1.4.x.
>>
>> On 1.4.4 default hash is PBKDF2, this ticket upgrade hash of user
>> entries during the user bind (enabled with nsslapd-enable-upgrade-hash).
>>
>> best regards
>> thierry
>>
>> On 11/22/22 09:25, Julian Kippels wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We have a radius server that reads the userPassword-attribute from
>>> ldap to authenticate users. There is a strange phenomenon where
>>> sometimes the answer from the ldap-server gives the wrong password
>>> hash algorithm. Our global password policy storage scheme is set to
>>> SSHA. When I perform a ldapsearch as directory manager I see that
>>> the password hash for a given user is
>>> {SSHA}inserthashedpasswordhere. But when I run tcpdump to see what
>>> our radius is being served I see {PBKDF2_SHA256}someotherhash around
>>> 50% of the time. Sometime another request from radius a few seconds
>>> after the first one gives the correct {SSHA} response.
>>>
>>> This happened right after we updated from 389ds 1.2.2 to 1.4.4.
>>> I am a bit stumped.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Julian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct:
>>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>>> List Archives:
>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Do not reply to spam, report it:
>>> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue