Bug 52910 - Unlocking previously Password locked account via PAM authentication not shown in UMC/UDM
Unlocking previously Password locked account via PAM authentication not shown...
Status: NEW
Product: UCS
Classification: Unclassified
Component: PAM
UCS 5.0
Other Linux
: P5 normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: UCS maintainers
UCS maintainers
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2021-03-15 12:30 CET by Arvid Requate
Modified: 2021-05-07 10:40 CEST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
What kind of report is it?: Development Internal
What type of bug is this?: ---
Who will be affected by this bug?: ---
How will those affected feel about the bug?: ---
User Pain:
Enterprise Customer affected?:
School Customer affected?:
ISV affected?:
Waiting Support:
Flags outvoted (downgraded) after PO Review:
Ticket number: 2021030921000766
Bug group (optional):
Max CVSS v3 score:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Arvid Requate univentionstaff 2021-03-15 12:30:23 CET
Unlocking of a user account via PAM login (e.g. ssh) that previously suffered a Password-Lockout (but lockout duration has passed) doesn't unlock the account in UDM.

root@dc0:~# udm users/user list --filter username=user1 | egrep "^ +locked:"
  locked: 1

I guess the only consequence of this is, that it continues to be shown as locked in UMC/UDM, but I'm unsure about this.


As a result, the sambaAcctFlags also still show the accout as locked, but that doesn't have any usability consequences if lockout duration in Samba/AD is configured the same as for faillog:

root@dc0:~# univention-ldapsearch -LLL uid=user1 userPassword sambaBadPasswordCount krb5KDCFlags sambaAcctFlags sambaBadPasswordTime pwdFailureTime pwdAccountLockedTime | ldapsearch-decode64
dn: uid=user1,cn=users,dc=samltest,dc=intranet
sambaBadPasswordCount: 0
userPassword: {crypt}$6$...
krb5KDCFlags: 126
sambaBadPasswordTime: 132601428200000000
sambaAcctFlags: [UL         ]
Comment 1 Florian Best univentionstaff 2021-05-06 18:04:15 CEST
This is not a regression of UCS 5, right?