On 05/15/2015 01:33 PM, Brian Topping wrote: > In the (apparently) first message to the list in 2014, > https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-users/2014-January/msg00000.html > <https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-users/2014-January/msg00000.html> > addressed questions about securing IPA and I don't see much other talk about > it. Now that 4.x is prevalent, I wanted to bring it up again.
This is the default by design. However, note that in FreeIPA 4.0+ you can change that default (permission-mod) and let users or some of the user attributes be only shown for authenticated users. https://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Permissions_V2 So, from my POV, this is not a flaw. > I'd like my installation to be allow hardened machines (i.e. in the cloud > with encrypted filesystems) to be a part of the domain. I believe this means > that I need to expose Kerberos and LDAP to the world, since the machines > could live anywhere. I don't believe I need to worry about KRB5, but I am > concerned about 389-DS since it seems somewhat difficult to force TLS > (https://blog.routedlogic.net/?p=119 <https://blog.routedlogic.net/?p=119>) > and maybe that's a bad idea under IPA for reasons I thought I'd ask here > about. Last year's thread also referenced > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/FreeIPA_Guide/disabling-anon-binds.html > > <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/FreeIPA_Guide/disabling-anon-binds.html> > and I thought I would check to see if that's still necessary under 4.x. 389-DS and TLS should be also fixed, since FreeIPA 4.1 (RHEL/CentOS 7.1): https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4653 This is an nmap test against the FreeIPA public demo (4.1.x): $ nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 636 ipa.demo1.freeipa.org Starting Nmap 6.47 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2015-05-18 11:08 CEST Nmap scan report for ipa.demo1.freeipa.org (209.132.178.99) Host is up (0.19s latency). PORT STATE SERVICE 636/tcp open ldapssl | ssl-enum-ciphers: | TLSv1.2: | ciphers: | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - strong | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - strong | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 - strong | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 - strong | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - strong | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 - strong | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 - strong | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA - strong | compressors: | NULL |_ least strength: strong Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.19 seconds > Setting up the firewall to allow cloud networks in is always an option, but > if I can get a secure IPA setup going, it would also allow road warriors to > kinit and use their credentials for configured intranet sites without having > to turn on the VPN (which can really slow things down from remote parts of > the globe). BTW, if you are concerned about exposed Kerberos traffic, FreeIPA 4.2 plans to offer Kerberos-over-HTTP functionality by default: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4801 Even now, it can be manually configured. This is what GNOME used: https://www.dragonsreach.it/2014/10/07/the-gnome-infrastructure-is-now-powered-by-freeipa/ So, if I am reading my notes correctly, there should be no blockers in using FreeIPA in your environment. If yes, please let me know. Martin -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users Go to http://freeipa.org for more info on the project
