[OpenAFS] Fixing old screw-ups, then adding Active Directory Domain

[Douglas E. Engert]

On 10/5/2011 3:28 AM, stasheck wrote:
> 2011/10/4 Douglas E. Engert<deengert@anl.gov>:
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/2011 8:41 AM, stasheck wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi to all,
>>> I write here in search for some conceptual advice (the actual help
>>> will be needed far further down the road).
>>>
>>> First, a bit of background.
>>>
>>> My company started work as a contractor. One of our clients' security
>>> requirements was to create physically separate network, just for
>>> people working for this contractor. This way, we initially had 2
>>> internal networks: one is "ours", and the other "contractors". This
>>> way, when OpenAFS has been introduced, two separate "worlds" has been
>>> created - complete with separate LDAP and Kerberos databases, and
>>> separate OpenAFS systems.
>>>
>>> As if that wasn't enough, short-sighteness of my precursors caused
>>> them to name BOTH of those worlds the same name - let's say
>>> "TEST.INT". That surely was *great* idea at the time, because it
>>> reduced administrative overhead a bit. Also, DNS space is doubled - so
>>> there are e.g. two afs servers, named the same, just in different
>>> networks. What noone saw coming, was a bit of relaxation from our
>>> contractor - and some time ago they agreed that IPs from "ours"
>>> network can (after all) be accessible from "contractors" - but not the
>>> other way round.
>>>
>>> Let me point the areas of problem:
>>> - user authentication - in both "worlds" users are named the same,
>>
>> If the same principal appears in both Kerberos realms,
>> does it represent the same individual?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If the case was the same username in each realm represented only
>> one individual, you might be able to merge the two realms
>> into one. If there are only a few conflicts, you might beable
>> to change some principals before a merge.
>
> That would be preferred course of action, except that it would allow
> users of only "ours" network to login into "contractors" - and we risk
> severe consequences for that. Mind you, the Kerberos protects also
> workstation logon. So unless I'm missing something (I hope I do),
> we'll still need 2 Kerberos realms.
>
>
>> Is the Kerberos V5 or V4.
>
> V5, MIT implementation.
>
>>
>>> they are in realm that's named the same, but is a different one
>>> - AFS servers -
>>
>> Server names are not a big problem. If the two AFS cells have the
>> same name that may be a problem.
>
> They have, unfortunately. Is there an easy way to change AFS cell name?

Good question, I have not had to do it, others on this list would
know better then I.

If you want to create a new cell, and migrate to it,
The fs newcell -linkedcell might help, (AFAIK) if a volume is not found
in the current cell see if is in the linked cell.
cell aliases could help too.
(users have the cell names in scripts too.)

>
>>
>>> they too are named the same; furthermore, the one from
>>> "ours" network can't "see" one from "contractors", but the one from
>>> "contractors" can see "ours" just fine (think of it as iptables
>>> related,established - type - firewall)
>>> - two separate DNS instances
>>> - oh, and currently we've got ~1000 users and 1,5k computers in our
>>> network
>>>
>>> What's more, now we've got plans to introduce AD domain in "ours"
>>> network. Great, another Kerberos, another AAA system in place. How
>>> about I (and my fellow sysadmins) will try to fix and simplify it as
>>> much as possible?
>>
>> And I assume the AD top level domain name would end up being the
>> same as the current 2 Kerberos realm names????
>
> I surely hope it doesn't. I am mentally prepared to create some
> subdomain for AD - like ad.test.int, and the Kerberos domain would be
> named the same. But what I would like to do is to allow users to have
> just one password for all Kerberos-authenticated services.

So you are talking about Kerberos cross realm between an AD domain and a
Kerberos realm. Others do that, and we did at one time,
and move all the user to the top level AD domain and unix server in the
Kerberos domain. We since move the unix server to the top level AD domain.

Cross realm can be a little tricky as AD is not as flexible as other Kerberos
implementations.

>
>>> I've already put in motion a plan to "flatten" DNS space, so names
>>> will be unique - so we can treat that as nearly non-issue.
>>
>> Keep in mind, that AD like to have the DCs and other windows servers
>> with a DNS domain name == AD domin name. The AD domin name is then
>> the Kerberos realm name (in uppercase) when AD is using Kerberos.
>
> That's ok.
>
>> You can register other Unix machines in AD Kerberos where
>> the DNS domain name is not the same as the AD domain name.
>
> You got me lost - I don't know what you're reffering to.

It has to do with adding host principals in to AD where the
DNS domain name of the host does not patch the AD domain name.

>
>>> Next idea is to allow "contractors" network users to use AFS resources
>>> from "ours" network (already a handful requests about that). What I
>>> already figured:
>>> - I have to change at least one of Kerberos realms to some other name
>>> (e.g. CONTRACTOR.TEST.INT)
>>
>> AN AFS cell name does not have to match the Kerberos realm name
>> at least when Kerberos v5 is used.
>> Are you using the kaserver and the built in Kerberos v4?
>> If so that may make a conversion to AD and Kerberos v5 easier.
>>
>>> - I have to move AFS infrastructure to the new realm
>>> Those are already two things I have no idea how to do smoothly (I
>>> mean, 1 weekend service window tops - you know, there are people
>>> working there :-) ). So, any advice would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> - I *think* that after that, having access from CONTRACTOR.TEST.INT to
>>> TEST.INT will be a piece of cake - if every user will re-authenticate
>>> with name@TEST.INT after logging to his/her workstation as
>>> name@CONTRACTOR.TEST.INT. Acceptable, but I'd like to be better than
>>> that - I would like to allow access to TEST.INT if one is already
>>> authenticated for CONTRACTOR.TEST.INT. From what I've seen, it's quite
>>> possible (of course, if stupid firewall won't come in between :/)
>>>
>>> Next: (actually, it may happen that it'll be the first thing to do):
>>> stupid Windows Domain. I already figured I need to move away from
>>> OpenLDAP to 389 Directory Server, so the AD can be kept in sync with
>>> LDAP; what I haven't figured is "is it possible to use just one
>>> Kerberos login", and "which Kerberos should it be".
>>
>> For unix machines you can continue to LDAP for authorization
>> and Kerberos for authentication. You don't have to use AD for
>> the authorization but you could.
>
> See comment above, about one password-rule.

Cross-realm or moving all users to the same realm can do this.

This is an old article, but the basic concepts still apply when
using AD and Kerberos together:
  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742433.aspx
All Kerberos implementations supports AES and RC4 now,
all default DES as being turned off.

>
>>> As far as I know, Microsoft decided to add some custom bits to its
>>> Kerberos implementation, which would mean that if I want to keep just
>>> one user password database, it will be AD's. So, in fact, I'd need to
>>> move away from my precious MIT Kerbers TEST.INT towards AD
>>> implementation. But I'm not sure what that'd mean for OpenAFS - i.e.
>>> can I run OpenAFS user auth from AD Kerberos?
>>
>> Yes, we have been doing it for years. All users are in the top level
>> AD domain. Unix servers as well as an afs/cellname@realm principal.
>> Our cellname == AD domain name but that is not required.
>
> That's quite alright. Could you point me to some docs to learn how to
> use AD Kerberos for OpenAFS? And, maybe even more important, is there
> a migration path from MIT Kerberos V5 to AD Kerberos?
>
>>> Another possibility (one I hope for) is that my lack of extensive
>>> experience with Kerberos and OpenAFS means I'm missing something
>>> simple. Or maybe what I devised is simple, it just seems complicated?
>>>
>>> I'll just re-iterate my goal: "flat" address and realm space, one (or
>>> two) user databases.
>>
>> Could work. One AD domain for Windows and all users for authentication,
>> and AD for windows authorization, and a LDAP for Unix authorization.
>> You would still have the AFS PTS with is user and groups as a seperate
>> authorization database.
>
> That's something I hope for, except that this pesky "contractors"
> network and its stupid firewall comes in my way. I'd still need to
> solve the problem on how to auth users in "contractors" network
> despite the one-way firewall (possible, I guess), and how to block
> "ours"-only users from logging on "contractors". I feel there should
> be some way to do this, I just don't know what is it.



>
> Maybe I can use this parallel:
> let's say there are users in Finances and Sales. Both departaments
> have separate LANs. I want to give both Finances and Sales the same
> Linux workstations, but somehow refrain Sales users from logging on
> Finance's computers - but those from Finances can login wherever they
> want.
>
> Is there a way to do that?

Yes, you can use netgroups to control who can login on what system,
see: man netgroup. Can also work with LDAP where you store the netgroups
in LDAP and see the @netgroup entries in /etc/passwd. and it works
independent of how they authenticated.

>
>>> Comments are very welcome.
>
> I may add - this is of course not purely OpenAFS problem, but I write
> here because the community is quite experienced with systems
> integration.
>
> /br
> Stan
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
>
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444