You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Making an attempt to set up smartcard login where the certificate is in the directory, and the directory is 389ds.
If we rely on the default value of ldap_user_certificate, which is userCertificate;binary, and we attempt to look up certificate in 389ds, the query silently fails.
Silently fails means that zero users are successfully returned for the LDAP search, and the code path follows "you don't exist" when the user does exist.
Changing the value to userCertificate (dropping the ;binary) makes 389ds work, meaning that suddenly one user is returned and the "hey, come on in" path is followed.
Not sure if this attribute name is wrong, or if it is as a result of different behaviour between openldap and 389ds.
At the very least the docs for ldap_user_certificate need to be updated to be clear what it should be set to depending on the server used, or more accurately the certificate syntax used, which I understand to be the cause of the difference in behaviour.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Making an attempt to set up smartcard login where the certificate is in the directory, and the directory is 389ds.
If we rely on the default value of ldap_user_certificate, which is userCertificate;binary, and we attempt to look up certificate in 389ds, the query silently fails.
Silently fails means that zero users are successfully returned for the LDAP search, and the code path follows "you don't exist" when the user does exist.
Changing the value to userCertificate (dropping the ;binary) makes 389ds work, meaning that suddenly one user is returned and the "hey, come on in" path is followed.
Not sure if this attribute name is wrong, or if it is as a result of different behaviour between openldap and 389ds.
At the very least the docs for ldap_user_certificate need to be updated to be clear what it should be set to depending on the server used, or more accurately the certificate syntax used, which I understand to be the cause of the difference in behaviour.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: