[x500standard] Re: Password policy PDAM

Erik Andersen wrote:
Hi Folks,

During the recent meeting in Geneva, the Working Document on Password
Policy was advanced to PDAM status. The document is now out for vote
with SC6. A link to the PDAM text may be found on
http://www.x500standard.com/index.php?n=Ig.Extension.

Just from a quick readthru:

page 6 uses pwdAdminSubentry[List], page 39 uses pwdPolicySubentry. For consistency's sake I think pwdPolicySubentry is better but these need to be changed to agree with each other.

Also for consistency, I'd suggest uniformly using "pwd" as the prefix on all attributes. This would affect:
   minPwdLength         pwdMinLength
   myPwdAttribute       pwdAttribute
   changePwdAllowed     pwdChangeAllowd
   modifyEntryPwdAllowed        pwdModifyEntryAllowed
   recentlyExpiredPwdDuration   pwdRecentlyExpiredDuration
   passwordHistory*             pwdHistory*

(Note that page 12 sec 11.6 references pwdHistory, not passwordHistory, so there's already confusion over the naming scheme.)

page 13 subclause 12.9

Maybe consider renaming here too:
   insufficientPasswordQuality          pwdInsufficientQuality
   passwordInHistory                    pwdInHistory
   noPasswordSlot                       pwdHistoryFull

but that's really just an afterthought.

page 20 Annex A

This looks comparable to the labeledURI attribute.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2079.txt

"Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)"

perhaps that can be reused here.

On a separate note, outside the scope of this discussion, I wish we had an actual URI syntax. URIs have well defined rules for format/construction; shoving them into a plain directory string is pretty sloppy.

page 22 Annex A

"password" is similar to simpleSecurityObject. Perhaps this objectclass name should be more explicit, like userPwdObject. Again, just an afterthought.

page 28 18.1.5.6

gracesUsed -> pwdGracesUsed

it also references the "graces" attribute, which is obviously supposed to be "pwdGraces".

page 29 18.1.6.5.1 typo in section title "Lzngth" -> "Length"

page 30 18.1.6.5.3 Password Alphabet Attribute

is it worthwhile to define a bit for 'nonPrintableCharacters' ? I frequently use passwords with TAB, BEL, SOH, STX, VT, FF, and other control characters included. Maybe that's just me.

page 37 annex L

I thought it was agreed that the language should be "hashing algorithms" not "encryption algorithms" ...

L.2/L.3 where is the definition of how many bits of salt should be used? The lack of a spec for this in LDAP has already caused interoperability issues between OpenLDAP and e.g. ApacheDS.

I'll followup later with another review in terms of the current LDAP ppolicy draft.
--
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/
-----
www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500 Directory 
Standard.

Other related posts: