Thanks for your response Jeff. I tried with your suggestion and did the following to my LDIF file. I use the ldapmodify command and logged in as "cn=Directory Manager" to perform these add operations. dn: ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectclass: top objectclass: organizationalunit aci: (targetattr = "*") (version 3.0; acl "general user access"; allow (all) (userdn="ldap:///self") ;) dn: cn=user1,ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectclass: top objectclass: person sn: user1 userPassword: testing123 description: This is a test Now when I use the ldapmodify and logged in as "cn=user1", to perform the below operation, it failed and gave me an insufficient access (50) error. Any idea? I think I'm stuck again. :-( dn: cn=testing123,cn=user1,ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectclass: top objectclass: room Thanks David <div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 10, 2007 3:44 PM, Clowser, Jeff (Contractor) < <a href="mailto:jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com">jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"> > I think you cleared everything for me. I did misunderstood the concept of "ldap:///self", and > I agree with you that deny rules should be avoided. > >ldap:///self refers to the owner of the entry which is the creator of the entry. Am I correct on this? </div>No. ldap:///self means the aci applies to the entry you bind to the server as. For example, if you create a rule on ou=serviceaccounts that says ldap:///self can change the attribute "userpassword", any user under ou=serviceaccounts can change their own password (i.e. if I bind as uid=user1,ou=serviceaccounts, I can write to the userpassword attribute of user1, and no one elses. If I bind as user2, I can write to user2's userpassword attribute, but no one elses). Creator of the entry has nothing to do with it. Technically, "owner" is yet something else (if an entry has an owner attribute, that typically will contain dn's of "owners" of the entry that can manipulate it in some way, but that's not automatic - you'd have to create aci's to define that owner relationship. LDAP does not otherwise/by default have "owners" of entries - Creator != Owner). <div class="Ih2E3d"> > After I specified the userdn as cn=user1,ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com in my ACI, > everything is now working as expected. user1 doesn't have the ability to write/add/replace the entry. > >Below is my new LDIF >dn: ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com > changetype: add > objectclass: top > objectclass: organizationalunit > >dn: cn=user1,ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com > changetype: add > objectclass: top > objectclass: person > sn: user1 > userPassword: testing123 > description: This is a test > aci: > (targetattr = "*") > (version 3.0; > acl "user1"; > allow (read, search, compare) > (userdn="ldap:///cn=user1,ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com > ");) </div>By doing it this way, you are allowing user1 to see it's own account, and nothing more - this aci does not allow other users to see user1, and does not allow user1 to see other users. Not unreasonable in and of itself, but if you create many users where you want identical behavior, it's very inefficient - you'll have way to many aci's in the directory and maintenance is more difficult. If you want all users to have these same rights, a better way is to put an aci like the following on the ou=serviceaccounts entry (and leave the aci off the user): <div class="Ih2E3d"> aci: (targetattr = "*") (version 3.0; </div> acl "user access"; allow (read, search, compare) (userdn="ldap:///self ");) This will allow any user under that branch of the tree that binds to the directory to read/search/compare their own entry, in it's entirety, without granting them access to anything else, nor granting any other user to see their entry. (I'd still recommend that you restrict the attribute list further, at least to targetattr!="userpassword" - there's usually no need for users to see their password hash, and letting that be transmitted over the network so freely is a bit of a security concern.) (Note: if you already have aci's in your tree above this, including the default aci's that come with the dir server, you may have other access granted that is added to this). - Jeff <div class="Ih2E3d"> On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Clowser, Jeff (Contractor) < </div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"> <a href="mailto:jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com">jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com">jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com</a>> > wrote: Couple things here. First, avoid deny rules if at all possible - deny rules always take precedence, so you can *never* override a deny rule with something to allow access that has been denied elsewhere. Second, I think you are misunderstanding how ldap:///self works. ldap:///self basically says "These permissions are granted on the targetted entry if I bind to the server as that target entry". In your case, what your deny rule is saying is that if I bind as user1, I can't read, write, or even search for the user1 entry, and as a deny rule, you can't create any other rule to ever allow user1 to see his own entry. So, you've created a rule that says anyone can read/write/search to anything under ou=serviceaccounts, *except* user1 can't read/write/search on his own entry. BTW, this seems like a really bad idea. Forget about ACI's and implementation for the moment - conceptually, what are you trying to do? Who should be able to do what? Are you saying you want anyone except user1 to be able to have full access to anything under ou=serviceaccounts? To define your access controls, you should really figure out who you want to do what, then define aci's for each thing you want to allow, such that they only *allow* just what you need, so you don't need any kind of deny rules. If you want to, for example, allow any user to edit any part of just their own record, put something like the following on the ou=serviceaccounts entry: aci: (targetattr = "*") (version 3.0; acl "default aci for service accounts"; allow (all) (userdn=ldap:///self) ;) This says that if I bind as a user under ou=serviceaccounts, I have full read/write/search access to the entry I bound as (i.e . my account). However, I'd recommend making even that more restrictive (for example, if all they really need to write to is their password, create one aci to allow them to read/search all attributes except the userpassword, and one to allow write to the userpassword with userdn of ldap:///self), etc. If you want all users to read other users entries, create another aci that allows search/read access to ldap:///anyone (and at least make it targetattr!="userpassword"), and so on.. - Jeff ________________________________ From: <a href="mailto:fedora-directory-users-bounces@redhat.com">fedora-directory-users-bounces@redhat.com </a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:fedora-directory-users-bounces@redhat.com">fedora-directory-users-bounces@redhat.com</a>] On Behalf Of Chun Tat David Chu Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:37 AM To: <a href="mailto:fedora-directory-users@redhat.com">fedora-directory-users@redhat.com</a> Subject: Re: [Fedora-directory-users] Question about ACI Hi guys, Please see below for my original question. I spend a little more time reading "Chapter 6 - Managing Access Control" from the RH Administrator Guide. At first, I thought it was my placement of ACI that was wrong, but it seems like that's not the case from what I read. The book stated that "The precedence rule that applies is that ACIs that deny access take precedence over ACIs that allow access." If my root allows everything and then my leaf denies everything then I don't see why the add operation that I mentioned below should work. Let me clear up a little more in case there's any confusion. The ou=serviceaccounts and cn=user1 entry is created by the "cn=Directory Manager" user. In my test, the root (ou=serviceaccounts), I specified an ACI that allows all user to do anything. In my leaf (cn=user1), I specified an ACI that denies everything for user1 by defining the bind rule as (ldap:///self). When I logged in as user1, I'm able to add entry in the cn=user1 context. I am not sure why because I thought that user1 shouldn't have any privilege to do anything due to my specified ACI. Any idea? Am I missing some obvious? Thanks! David On Dec 7, 2007 6:28 PM, Chun Tat David Chu <<a href="mailto:beyonddc.storage@gmail.com">beyonddc.storage@gmail.com </a>> wrote: Hi guys, I am trying to create an organizational unit and an user with ACI, but it looks like my ACI is not defined correctly. Below is my ldif. dn: ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectclass: top objectclass: organizationalunit aci: (targetattr = "*") (version 3.0; acl "default aci for service accounts"; allow (all) (userdn="ldap:///anyone") ;) dn: cn=user1,ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectclass: top objectclass: person sn: user1 userPassword: testing123 description: This is a test aci: (targetattr = "*") (version 3.0 ; acl "user1"; deny (all) (userdn="ldap:///self") ;) I create an organizational unit that allows all users to modify it, then I create user1 that denies everything. I then use the below LDIF to perform a LDAP add operation. dn: cn=testing123,cn=user1,ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectclass: top objectclass: room I use this ldapmodify command to perform the add operation ldapmodify -h hostname -p 1389 -D "cn=user1,ou=serviceaccounts,dc=test,dc=example,dc=com" -w testing123 -f my_test.ldif -x The add operation succeeded unexpectedly. The result that I'm looking for should be not enough privilege to perform add operation. Anyone knows what's wrong with my ACI setup? Thanks! David -- Fedora-directory-users mailing list <a href="mailto:Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com">Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com</a> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users </a> -- Fedora-directory-users mailing list <a href="mailto:Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com">Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com</a> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users" target="_blank"> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users</a> </div></div></blockquote></div>