Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Package: libkrb53
> Version: 1.6.dfsg.1-6
> Severity: important

> This is a confusing one (for me, anyway):

> I have a GSSAPI-capable client (curl, using the --negotiate flag).  It
> is linked against the MIT krb5 libraries.  It is connecting to service
> "X".  My credentials cache already has a (non-expired) ticket for X
> (in addition to having a TGT).

> My understanding of the krb5 protocol is that there is no need to
> contact the KDC until ticket expiry.  In my test environment, the KDC
> is inaccessible after having granted the tickets.

> However, with the lenny version of libkrb53, not only does my client
> attempt to contact the KDC (both primary and secondary, repeatedly,
> for ~45 seconds); if neither KDC responds, the GSSAPI authentication
> fails.

> Trying the same experiment on a debian etch system with the same
> credentials cache shows the same repeated attempts to contact the
> KDCs, but then the GSSAPI authentication succeeds.

Since there's a change between etch and lenny, this smells like a referral
issue.  The primary user-noticable difference between the etch libraries
and the lenny libraries is that the lenny libraries will query the KDC to
determine the appropriate realm for a service ticket rather than applying
a heuristic based on DNS names, which means that people without
domain_realm mappings are seeing different behavior.

Could you check your /etc/krb5.conf file on the client and make sure that
you have a domain_realm mapping set up for the system to which you're
trying to authenticate?  For example, if your realm is EXAMPLE.ORG and the
system is webserver.example.org, a mapping like:

    [domain_realm]
        .example.org = EXAMPLE.ORG

should be sufficient.

My guess is that this is missing and that adding it will restore the etch
behavior.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to