I know that LDAP server (or directory service or directory) stores information (mostly used for storing user information) in object oriented database.
Is it just a "user store"? And can be used using LDAP API or "LDAP configuration in server" for user authentication and to get user information...
LDAP in itself provides any other functionality than storing user information? Like security configuration? policy configuration? etc.
How bad performance will be if a relational database (say Oracle) is used to store user information?
Thanks.
Actually newer versions of OpenLDAP store their configuration inside itself only, classic text configuration file is depreciated, if not removed already. This feature is called cn=config in OpenLDAP [ http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/slapdconf2.html#cn=config ]. Thing you're probably thinking about is dynamic ACI ( not to be confused with ACL which is also provided ), and sure, LDAP, in general, provides much functionality like that. There are also monitor backends provided, in general LDAP likes itself, and is driven into self-managed direction. However, it's purpose is quite different than RDBMS, it's optimized for search operations, but not manipulating data and doing computations on it. Think it that way - e.g. user information, or DNS information is retrieved enormously more times than modified, and that's field in which ldap rocks. You actually rarely need suming UserID's, don't you? :) Object oriented database means, that - in contrary to RDBMS - data is organized with the way closer to OO type ( classess, attributes, inheritance etc. ). There are also SQL backends to ldap ( don't know what sense does it make though ), but I haven't heard about LDAP backends for SQL database.
Have a look on OpenLDAP Administration Guide here
http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/
Regarding storing custom information, you can create your own classes, objects and even attribute types, by inheritance/composing existing entities, or from scratch. Sky is the limit, man ;-)
An LDAP directory server stores data in attributes which are grouped in entries. Which attributes are required or allowed in an entry is defined by an attribute called an objectClass. Each attribute type has an attribute definition in a schema. The attribute type definition has a syntax which defines what sort of data is allowed, possibly a matching rule and/or ordering rule defining how attribute values are compared, and other data describing the attribute. Any sort of data can be stored in a directory server database, including binary data. Most often a directory server is used for authentication and profile information. Legacy directory servers like OpenLDAP don't perform as well on updates (ADD, MOD, DELETE, MODRDN) as on authentication or searches, but more modern servers perform updates at a very high rate.
Related
I'm trying to set up an LDAP server which has a local database of some users, but will refer the request to another 'parent' server if the record is not found on it's own database. The records would not have a different suffix, just that the userid would be different. I have read lots about referrals, chaining, master/slave, producer/consumer, etc. However, I cannot work out which is the right solution for me as there is a lot of differing confusing documentation. I am only a user of the 'parent' server, so would prefer not to have to change any settings on it. I would like to use OpenLDAP or an equivalent FOSS solution.
Thanks!
Long time lurker, first time poster, please bear with me.
I'm trying to set up a sharded, secure Mongodb environment. I would like to make use of Mongo's autosharding capability, since I'm sort of new to databases and on a tight schedule.
It seems that autosharding only applies to individual collections (tables), but I don't want users to have access to the entire collection. Further, mongoDB only allows authentication into databases, so once authenticated, a user can see 1) every collection in the db and 2) all data within each collection. So, as far as I can tell, I can either have autosharding and no authentication, or manual sharding and authentication.
I would like the best of both worlds, that is: autosharding and authentication. Is this possible? If not, how should I go about manual sharding in MongoDB?
A simplified use case of this system: collection 'Users' has data on every user. I want to authenticate user X so that X can only see X's data in the User's collection. And Users is distributed across multiple servers partitioned (sharded) by user_name.
MongoDb doesn't have authentication like traditional SQL databases. In fact if you read the manual its recommended that you use a secured environment instead of using authentication. Any access control to your data would be implemented within your application.
Even with traditional SQL, access isnt control by row. Thats usually something implemented at the application level based on some sort of key within the data.
I'm a lead developer on a project which is building web applications for my companies SaaS offering. We are currently using LDAP to store user data such as IDs, passwords, contanct details, preferences and other user specific data.
One of the applications we are building is a reporting service that will both collect and present management information to our end users. Obviously this service will require a RDBMS but it will also need to access user data stored in LDAP.
As I see it we have a two basic implementation options:
Duplicate user data in both LDAP and the RDBMS.
Have the reporting service access LDAP whenever it needs user data.
Although duplicating data (and implementing the mechanisms to make this happen) as suggested in option 1 seems the wrong way to go, my gut feeling is that option 2 would not perform well enough (how do you 'join' LDAP data to RDBMS data as efficiently as a pure RDBMS implementation?).
I did find a related question but I'm still unsure which approach to take. I'd be interested in seeing what people thought of either option or perhaps other options.
Why would you feel that duplicating data would be the wrong way to go? Reporting tools (web based and otherwise) are mostly built around RDBMS's, so any mix'n'match will introduce unnecessary complexities. Reports are likely to need to be changed fairly frequently (from experience), so you want them to be as simple as possible. The data you store about users is unlikely to change its format very often, so once you have your import function working, you won't need to touch it again.
The only obstacle I can see is latency: how do you ensure that your RDBMS copy is up to date? You might need to ensure that your updating code writes to both destinations. Personally, also, I wouldn't necessarily use LDAP for application specific personal preferences: LDAP can't handle transactions, so what happens when data is updated from several directions? (Transactionality is of course also a problem with letting updaters write to both stores...) I'd rather let the RDBMS be the master for most data, and let LDAP worry only about identity, credentials and entitlements, which are rarely changed and only for one set of purposes. For myself, LDAP's ability to deal with hierarchical data isn't all that great a selling point.
Data duplication is not always a bad thing, especially when the usage scenarios are different enough.
I'm no beginner to using SQL databases, and in particular SQL Server. However, I've been primarily a SQL 2000 guy and I've always been confused by schemas in 2005+. Yes, I know the basic definition of a schema, but what are they really used for in a typical SQL Server deployment?
I've always just used the default schema. Why would I want to create specialized schemas? Why would I assign any of the built-in schemas?
EDIT: To clarify, I guess I'm looking for the benefits of schemas. If you're only going to use it as a security scheme, it seems like database roles already filled that.. er.. um.. role. And using it a as a namespace specifier seems to have been something you could have done with ownership (dbo versus user, etc..).
I guess what I'm getting at is, what do Schemas do that you couldn't do with owners and roles? What are their specifc benefits?
Schemas logically group tables, procedures, views together. All employee-related objects in the employee schema, etc.
You can also give permissions to just one schema, so that users can only see the schema they have access to and nothing else.
Just like Namespace of C# codes.
They can also provide a kind of naming collision protection for plugin data. For example, the new Change Data Capture feature in SQL Server 2008 puts the tables it uses in a separate cdc schema. This way, they don't have to worry about a naming conflict between a CDC table and a real table used in the database, and for that matter can deliberately shadow the names of the real tables.
I know it's an old thread, but I just looked into schemas myself and think the following could be another good candidate for schema usage:
In a Datawarehouse, with data coming from different sources, you can use a different schema for each source, and then e.g. control access based on the schemas. Also avoids the possible naming collisions between the various source, as another poster replied above.
If you keep your schema discrete then you can scale an application by deploying a given schema to a new DB server. (This assumes you have an application or system which is big enough to have distinct functionality).
An example, consider a system that performs logging. All logging tables and SPs are in the [logging] schema. Logging is a good example because it is rare (if ever) that other functionality in the system would overlap (that is join to) objects in the logging schema.
A hint for using this technique -- have a different connection string for each schema in your application / system. Then you deploy the schema elements to a new server and change your connection string when you need to scale.
At an ORACLE shop I worked at for many years, schemas were used to encapsulate procedures (and packages) that applied to different front-end applications. A different 'API' schema for each application often made sense as the use cases, users, and system requirements were quite different. For example, one 'API' schema was for a development/configuration application only to be used by developers. Another 'API' schema was for accessing the client data via views and procedures (searches). Another 'API' schema encapsulated code that was used for synchronizing development/configuration and client data with an application that had it's own database. Some of these 'API' schemas, under the covers, would still share common procedures and functions with eachother (via other 'COMMON' schemas) where it made sense.
I will say that not having a schema is probably not the end of the world, though it can be very helpful. Really, it is the lack of packages in SQL Server that really creates problems in my mind... but that is a different topic.
I tend to agree with Brent on this one... see this discussion here. http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2010/05/why-use-schemas/
In short... schemas aren't terribly useful except for very specific use cases. Makes things messy. Do not use them if you can help it. And try to obey the K(eep) I(t) S(imple) S(tupid) rule.
I don't see the benefit in aliasing out users tied to Schemas. Here is why....
Most people connect their user accounts to databases via roles initially, As soon as you assign a user to either the sysadmin, or the database role db_owner, in any form, that account is either aliased to the "dbo" user account, or has full permissions on a database. Once that occurs, no matter how you assign yourself to a scheme beyond your default schema (which has the same name as your user account), those dbo rights are assigned to those object you create under your user and schema. Its kinda pointless.....and just a namespace and confuses true ownership on those objects. Its poor design if you ask me....whomever designed it.
What they should have done is created "Groups", and thrown out schemas and role and just allow you to tier groups of groups in any combination you like, then at each tier tell the system if permissions are inherited, denied, or overwritten with custom ones. This would have been so much more intuitive and allowed DBA's to better control who the real owners are on those objects. Right now its implied in most cases the dbo default SQL Server user has those rights....not the user.
I think schemas are like a lot of new features (whether to SQL Server or any other software tool). You need to carefully evaluate whether the benefit of adding it to your development kit offsets the loss of simplicity in design and implementation.
It looks to me like schemas are roughly equivalent to optional namespaces. If you're in a situation where object names are colliding and the granularity of permissions is not fine enough, here's a tool. (I'd be inclined to say there might be design issues that should be dealt with at a more fundamental level first.)
The problem can be that, if it's there, some developers will start casually using it for short-term benefit; and once it's in there it can become kudzu.
In SQL Server 2000, objects created were linked to that particular user, like if a user, say
Sam creates an object, say, Employees, that table would appear like: Sam.Employees. What
about if Sam is leaving the compnay or moves to so other business area. As soon you delete
the user Sam, what would happen to Sam.Employees table? Probably, you would have to change
the ownership first from Sam.Employees to dbo.Employess. Schema provides a solution to
overcome this problem. Sam can create all his object within a schemam such as Emp_Schema.
Now, if he creates an object Employees within Emp_Schema then the object would be
referred to as Emp_Schema.Employees. Even if the user account Sam needs to be deleted, the
schema would not be affected.
development - each of our devs get their own schema as a sandbox to play in.
Here a good implementation example of using schemas with SQL Server. We had several ms-access applications. We wanted to convert those to a ASP.NET App portal. Every ms-access application is written as an App for that portal. Every ms-access application has its own database tables. Some of those are related, we put those in the common dbo schema of SQL Server. The rest gets its own schemas. That way if we want to know what tables belong to an App on the ASP.NET app portal that can easily be navigated, visualised and maintained.
I know that LDAP is used to provide some information and to help facilitate authorization.
But what are the other usages of LDAP?
I will focus on why using LDAP, not what is LDAP.
The use model is similar like how people use library cards or phonebooks. When you have a task that requires “write/update once, read/query many times”, you might consider using LDAP. LDAP is designed to provide extremely fast read/query performance for a large scale of dataset. Typically you want to store only a small piece of information for each entry. The add/delete/update performance is relatively slower compared with read/query because the assumption is that you don’t do “update” that often.
Imagine you have a website that has a million registered users with thousands of page requests per second. Without LDAP, every time users click a page, even for static page viewing, you will probably need to interact with your database to validate the user ID and its digital signature for this login session. Obviously, the query to your database for user-validation will become your bottleneck. By using LDAP, you can easily offload the user validation and gain significant performance improvement. Essentially, in this example, LDAP is another optimization layer outside your database to enhance performance, not replacing any database functions.
LDAP is not just for user validation, any task that has the following properties might be a good use case for LDAP:
You need to locate ONE piece of data many times and you want it fast
You don’t care about the logic and relations between different data
You don’t update, add, or delete the data very often
The size of each data entry is small
You don’t mind having all these small pieces of data at a centralized place
That's a rather large question.
LDAP is a protocol for accessing a directory. A directory contains objects; generally those related to users, groups, computers, printers and so on; company structure information (although frankly you can extend it and store anything in there).
LDAP gives you query methods to add, update and remove objects within a directory (and a bunch more, but those are the central ones).
What LDAP does not do is provide a database; a database provides LDAP access to itself, not the other way around. It is much more than signup.
Well, there are LDAP servers and the LDAP protocol. Combined, it's a data store, or a database. It's not relational, but it's just a place to store data, and it's optimized to be efficient at reads more than writes. It doesn't support transactions.
Now, it happens to be very popular for storing credentials, but that's by no means its only purpose, and not its original purpose.
LDAP stands for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. As the name suggests, it is a lightweight protocol for accessing directory services, specifically X.500-based directory services. LDAP runs over TCP/IP or other connection oriented transfer services. The nitty-gritty details of LDAP are defined in RFC2251 "The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)" and other documents comprising the technical specification RFC3377. This section gives an overview of LDAP from a user's perspective.
What kind of information can be stored in the directory? The LDAP information model is based on entries. An entry is a collection of attributes that has a globally-unique Distinguished Name (DN). The DN is used to refer to the entry unambiguously. Each of the entry's attributes has a type and one or more values. The types are typically mnemonic strings, like cn for common name, or mail for email address. The syntax of values depend on the attribute type. For example, a cn attribute might contain the value Babs Jensen. A mail attribute might contain the value babs#example.com. A jpegPhoto attribute would contain a photograph in the JPEG (binary) format.
How is the information arranged? In LDAP, directory entries are arranged in a hierarchical tree-like structure.
LDAP is the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. Basically, it's a protocol used to access data from a database (or other source) and it's mostly suited for large numbers of queries and minimal updates (the sort of thing you would use for login information for example).
LDAP doesn't itself provide a database, just a means to query data in the database.
The main idea of LDAP is to keep in one place all the information of a user (contact details, login, password, permissions), so that it is easier to maintain by network administrators. For example you can:
use the same login/passwd to login on an Intranet and on your local computer.
give specific permissions to a group of user. For example some could access some specific page of your Intranet, or some specific directories on a shared drive.
get all the contact details of the people in a company on Outlook for example.
The main benefit of using LDAP is that information for an entire organization can be consolidated into a central repository. For example, rather than managing user lists for each group within an organization, LDAP can be used as a central directory accessible from anywhere on the network. And because LDAP supports Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS), sensitive data can be protected from prying eyes.
LDAP also supports a number of back-end databases in which to store directories. This allows administrators the flexibility to deploy the database best suited for the type of information the server is to disseminate. Because LDAP also has a well-defined client Application Programming Interface (API), the number of LDAP-enabled applications are numerous and increasing in quantity and quality.
LDAP main usage is to provider faster retrieval of data . It acts as a central repository for storing user details that can be accessed by various application at same time .
The data that is read various time but we rarely update the data then LDAP is better option as it is faster to read in it because of its structure but updating(add/updatee or delete) is bit tedious job in case of LDAP
Security provided by LDAP : LDAP can work with SSL & TLS and thus can be used for sensitive information .
LDAP also can work with number of database providing greater flexibility to choose database best suited for our environment
Can be a better option for synchronising information between master and its replicase
LDAP apart from supporting the data recovery capability .Also , allows us to export data into LDIF file that can be read by various software available in the market
I have had the opportunity to start a project for school about ldap, from scratch, but before getting to know what is ldap, I had to understand what is a directory, there are many (most used directories are novell and windows), here you can see what the directory in Wikipedia.
And ldap is the protocol to communicate with the board, one of the best books I've found is this one.
LDAP is just a protocol to access structured information. LDAP has standardized local and remote access to information whereas in case of database there is only standardized local access and remote access is proprietary.
LDAP server is optimized for search operation and database for transactions(Insert/Delete).
For more information refer following link:
http://www.itszero.in/2013/09/what-is-ldap-ad-adam.html
In Windows Server LDAP is a protocol which is used for access Active Directory object, user authentication, authorization.
To take the definitions the other mentioned earlier a bit further, how about this perspective...
LDAP is Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. DAP, is an X.500 notion, and in X.500 is VERY heavy weight! (It sort of requires a full 7 layer ISO network stack, which basically only IBM's SNA protocol ever realistically implemented).
There are many other approaches to DAP. Novell has one called NDAP (NCP Novell Core Protocols are the transport, and NDAP is how it reads the directory).
LDAP is just a very lightweight DAP, as the name suggests.
Well,
LDAP is a protocol(way) to access structured info. LDAP uses client-server model so, LDAP client makes request to access required info. LDAP server stores info not in relational way but in attribute and value pair. You can use LDAP to assign same privilege to group of user or same credential to access multiple services. For more details refer following link : http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch2/
LDAP stands for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol.It is used in Active Directory for communicating user queries..e.g.. LDAP can be used by users to search and locate a particular object like a laser printer in a domain.
LDAP is also used to store your credentials in a network security system and retrieve it with your password and decrypted key giving you access to the services.
Light weight directory access protocal is used to authenticate users to access AD information
LDAP stands for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (not a database). As the name says it is used for accessing/reading data. LDAP is a protocol to access data from directory servers which is a hierarchical database, it is designed for reading, browsing, searching, and organizing data. This kind of data we do not modify regularly or it is very infrequently modified data.
Big companies store their internal data, for example, user names with their title and id or phonebooks of their workers on LDAP servers (this server implements a tree-structured database). Those data can be reached by the workers of that company through the LDAP protocol. LDAP protocol runs over TCP or UDP protocol and accesses the server through port 389. There is also LDAPS that runs over SSL and accesses the server through port 636.