Re: [PATCH 0/3] cifs.upcall: attempt to use AD-style service principals

[Andrew Bartlett <abartlet-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>]

On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 20:17 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> We've had a request recently to allow cifs.upcall to use AD-style
> service principals. While trying to nail down what they need, I asked
> Simo his opinion on how best to pick a service principal for a given
> hostname. His suggestion was:
> 
> 	INPUT: fooo
> 	TRY in order:
>   		FOOO$@REALM
> 		cifs/fooo.<guessed domain ?>@REALM
>   		host/fooo.<guessed domain ?>@REALM
> 
> 	INPUT: bar.example.com
> 	TRY in order:
> 		cifs/bar.example.com@REALM
> 		BAR$@REALM
> 		host/bar.example.com@REALM
> 
> This patchset attempts to embody that logic.
> 
> Suggestions welcome. Those reviewing it, please pay particular attention
> to the scheme for guessing a domain name. I want to make certain that
> we're not opening up any security holes with that scheme.

Perhaps I'm missing some background, but this looks wrong to me, at
least for the pure AD case.  

First, in AD cifs/ is an alias of host/, so looking for both will not
help.  Secondly, looking for bar$ is an outright guess, as there is no
reliable mapping between a long name in DNS and the short
samAccountName.

If we map wrongly, we might luck out and get a KDC error indicating no
such host, or we might fail at session setup time, with logon failure. 

What is wrong with simply requesting a principal of cifs/INPUT@REALM?
In AD, the KDC does all the canonicalisation work (perhaps I should have
clarified this in the previous thread).

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett



-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org