The answer would be obvious if we had a misconfigured URI, but I don't think we 
do. In fact, we are getting this error from the ldap/translucent proxy on a 
first attempt to retrieve a DN from a remote Active Directory, then a second 
identical ldapsearch always succeeds. That makes us think there might be a 
timing issue getting from our openldap server, through a forwarding proxy out 
of a DMZ, and finally to the target AD server. But since all the openldap log 
messages appear with the same timestamp, there would have to be a sub-second 
timeout somewhere in the path. Does openldap have any default sub-second 
timeouts? I haven't configured any of the slapd or slapd-ldap timeout options.

Here is a typical log from a failed search:

  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 fd=10 ACCEPT from 
IP=172.20.11.85:54864 (IP=0.0.0.0:636)
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 fd=10 TLS established tls_ssf=256 
ssf=256
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 op=0 BIND 
dn="cn=localuser,ou=users,ou=Native,dc=example,dc=com" method=128
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 op=0 BIND 
dn="cn=localuser,ou=users,ou=Native,dc=example,dc=com" mech=SIMPLE ssf=0
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 op=0 RESULT tag=97 err=0 text=
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 op=1 SRCH 
base="dc=example,dc=com" scope=2 deref=0 filter="(sAMAccountName=steve.eckmann)"
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 op=1 SRCH attr=cn
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 op=1 ldap_back_retry: retrying 
URI="ldap://172.30.11.20"; DN="cn=remoteuser,ou=users,ou=system 
accounts,dc=example,dc=com"
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: Error: ldap_back_is_proxy_authz returned 0, 
misconfigured URI?
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: <= mdb_equality_candidates: 
(sAMAccountName) not indexed
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 op=1 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 
nentries=0 text=
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 op=2 UNBIND
  Jul 15 09:46:09 eck1 slapd[9198]: conn=1001 fd=10 closed

Thanks.

Steve


Reply via email to