<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Title" content=""> <meta name="Keywords" content=""> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"> <div class="WordSection1"> I still think there is something wrong here.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You say that the DNSSEC reply is "just warning", but when I get that warning, a subsequent trust-add fails every time. When I don't get the warning, the trust-add works.<o:p></o:p> Therefore, the warning cannot just be ignored. Why is that?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I have tried the following:<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>Signing the target Active Directory zone – it does not make a difference<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>FreeIPA /etc/named.conf – "validation no" makes the warning go away ONLY when I use the CLI on a root login.<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>Running the ipa CLI from a salt state or a subprocess of my Java webapp ALWAYS gets the warning regardless.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If there really should be a warning, then why don't I see it from the CLI?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> And can you help me understand what would be significantly different between an interactive login and a "su –l root" in salt?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thank you for any insight,<o:p></o:p> Dan<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> From: Dan Dietterich <dan@cazena.com> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:24 AM To: Martin Bašti <mbasti@redhat.com>, "freeipa-users@redhat.com" <freeipa-users@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Freeipa-users] DNSSEC warning when DNSSEC should be disabled<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> From: Martin Bašti <mbasti@redhat.com> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:23 AM To: Dan Dietterich <dan@cazena.com>, "freeipa-users@redhat.com" <freeipa-users@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Freeipa-users] DNSSEC warning when DNSSEC should be disabled<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> IPA servers always check if DNSSEC is working on forwarders, but it is just warning. If you have disabled dnssec in named.conf then it is okay.<o:p></o:p> I'm not sure why sometimes you see this warning and sometimes don't, maybe inconsistent replies from forwarder.<o:p></o:p> domain ".internal" should always fail because it is unregistered TLD<o:p></o:p> Martin<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> On 19.04.2017 15:11, Dan Dietterich wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> My configuration is a single ipa server and both the code path and the bash prompt path are running on the node that is also running the ipa server. I thought that since FreeIPA was installed with --no-dnssec-validation that I should never see this warning. And I confirmed that both dnssec-enabled and dnssec-validation are set to 'no' in the /etc/named.conf.<o:p></o:p> So I'm confused that you say the DNSSEC should always fail.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Thanks for your help!<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> From: Martin Bašti <a href="mailto:mbasti@redhat.com"><mbasti@redhat.com></a> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 3:59 AM To: Dan Dietterich <a href="mailto:dan@cazena.com"><dan@cazena.com></a>, <a href="mailto:freeipa-users@redhat.com"> "freeipa-users@redhat.com"</a> <a href="mailto:freeipa-users@redhat.com"><freeipa-users@redhat.com></a> Subject: Re: [Freeipa-users] DNSSEC warning when DNSSEC should be disabled<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <div> On 13.04.2017 22:50, Dan Dietterich wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> I am seeing inconsistent results configuring a DNS forward zone.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> At a bash prompt, as root, after kinit admin, I do:<o:p></o:p> ipa dnsforwardzone-add domain.internal --forwarder= ww.xx.yy.zz --forward-policy=only<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> That works fine and does not warn about DNSSEC.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> In a Java webapp running as root under a Jetty, I run a shell sub-process and issue the kinit and the same ipa statement.<o:p></o:p> _Sometimes_, I get <o:p></o:p> ipa: WARNING: DNSSEC validation failed: record 'domain.internal. SOA' failed DNSSEC validation on server ww.xx.yy.zz.<o:p></o:p> Please verify your DNSSEC configuration or disable DNSSEC validation on all IPA servers.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I modified the /etc/named.conf file to say:<o:p></o:p> dnssec-enable no;<o:p></o:p> dnssec-validation no;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> and systemctl restart ipa<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Any clue why the results are different?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> ipa –version: VERSION: 4.4.0, API_VERSION: 2.213<o:p></o:p> Linux … 3.10.0-514.10.2.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Mar 3 00:04:05 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Thanks for any insight!<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Regards,<o:p></o:p> Dan<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> </blockquote> Hello, checks are done on IPA server side, how many servers do you have? Is possible that CLI connects to different servers. However in this case, DNSSEC check should always fail and report error, so it is weird why it passed. Martin <o:p></o:p> <pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>Martin Bašti<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>Software Engineer<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>Red Hat Czech<o:p></o:p></pre> </blockquote> <o:p></o:p> <pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>Martin Bašti<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>Software Engineer<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>Red Hat Czech<o:p></o:p></pre> </div> </body> </html>