Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 529 of 808  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Icon Authordown Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  68821   Wed Jun 13 18:08:06 2018 Entry Janusz Szubajanusz.szuba@xfel.euRequestLinux3.1.3number of entries in Login user list

Hi, 

could it be possible to increase the limit of entries in Login user list from 100 to somewhat reasonably higher? Like twice or 3 times as much. Similar limit exist also on Admin user list, which is afair 10, could this also be increased?

best

Janusz

  68823   Thu Jun 14 13:07:32 2018 Reply Janusz Szubajanusz.szuba@xfel.euRequestLinux3.1.3Re: number of entries in Login user list

Thanks, good point, I was not sure that in case of other lists which will be changed as well, there will not be any problems, like overflow, etc. 

Regarding admin list, now I remember, that was the limit to send email notification in case of registration requests. But actually it is not important right now.

best

Janusz

Andreas Luedeke wrote:

Hi Janusz,

You can change the following line in elogd.h and recompile:

#define MAX_N_LIST      100
That'll change the login user list limit. But it'll change other list length as well - which should not do harm unless you are very short of memory.

I don't see the Admin user list limit of 10 - aparently that is hard coded somewhere deep within (or I've just missed it).

Cheers, Andreas

Janusz Szuba wrote:

Hi, 

could it be possible to increase the limit of entries in Login user list from 100 to somewhat reasonably higher? Like twice or 3 times as much. Similar limit exist also on Admin user list, which is afair 10, could this also be increased?

best

Janusz

 

 

  69167   Mon Jul 6 19:09:48 2020 Entry Janusz Szubajanusz.szuba@xfel.euBug reportLinux3.1.4bug in elog.spec

Hi, 

in commit 1812e7c, specifying CFLAGS to make command in elog.spec, renders all other settings in Makefile void. That is, if I want to include any of KRB5, LDAP, PAM support, and change makefile accordingly, then when producing rpm they are not taken into account. Anyway, CFLAGS in Makefile are already set to the same defaults, so why it is redefined in spec file?

best

Janusz

  69169   Tue Jul 7 11:22:45 2020 Reply Janusz Szubajanusz.szuba@xfel.euBug reportLinux3.1.4Re: bug in elog.spec

Thanks for the answer, I will try with your specfile

best

Janusz

Laurent Jean-Rigaud wrote:

Hi,

You rights, CFLAGS should not be in specfile to take care of distrib env.

Btw, I sent in the past an update for build process of Stefan delivery to generate src.rpm file copatible to tarball version. I think Stefan did not have time yet to test and to check.

With the enclosed SPEC file, you can build ELOG with options at rpmbulld command w/o modifying sources. For exemple,

rpm -i elog-.....src.rpm

rpmbuild -bb --with ssl --with pam --with ldap --with krb5 ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/elog.spec

 

I enclosed also the SRPMS i used for my projects. Be careful, It's maybe not uptodate of last GIT version or PSI releases... but you can test it on your RPM distrib. It should be nice to hare your feedback.

Bye,

Laurent

 

Janusz Szuba wrote:

Hi, 

in commit 1812e7c, specifying CFLAGS to make command in elog.spec, renders all other settings in Makefile void. That is, if I want to include any of KRB5, LDAP, PAM support, and change makefile accordingly, then when producing rpm they are not taken into account. Anyway, CFLAGS in Makefile are already set to the same defaults, so why it is redefined in spec file?

best

Janusz

 

 

  69385   Mon Jul 19 18:41:29 2021 Question Janusz Szubajanusz.szuba@xfel.euQuestionLinux3.1.4Deny option and Guest commands

Hi, 

I have a logbook with guest access and guest can also enter a new entry (in config: Guest List Menu commands = New, Find, Select, Login). For other reason in a global section, I put 

Deny New = account1, account2

This somehow invalidates Guest List Menu commands, since as guest I don't see New button anymore. Is this behaviour desired? Otherwise, I would need to move Deny option to plenty of individual logbook configs. Just to explain the reason, those accounts are set up to only read entries and not to create new ones. Or maybe you can suggest a different solution?

Best

  69153   Fri May 29 09:27:32 2020 Entry Jan Just Keijserjanjust@nikhef.nlBug reportLinux3.1.4-2"New User" option does not work when Authentication=Webserver

Our setup uses "Authentication=Webserver" + no automatic user registration. Thus, logbook admins should add a user by clicking "Config"  and then "New user". However, no matter what they fill in in the "new user " dialog, as soon as they hit "Save" an error pops up saying that their username (the admin one, not the new one) already exists. I found the following code:

int save_user_config(LOGBOOK * lbs, char *user, BOOL new_user)
{
   char file_name[256], str[256], *pl, user_enc[256], new_pwd[80], new_pwd2[80], smtp_host[256],
       email_addr[256], mail_from[256], mail_from_name[256], subject[256], mail_text[2000], str2[256],
       admin_user[80], url[256], error[2000], sid[32];
   int i, self_register, code, first_user;
   PMXML_NODE node, subnode, npwd; 

   /* if we outsourced the authentication, use external username */
   getcfg(lbs->name, "Authentication", str, sizeof(str));
   if (stristr(str, "Webserver")) {
      /* do not allow HTML in user name */
      strencode2(user_enc, http_user, sizeof(user_enc));
   } else {
      strencode2(user_enc, user, sizeof(user_enc));
   }

 

which seems to be the culprit:  the admin user is logged using his/her Webserver (http_user) credentials and this overrides anything that he/she might fill in.  If I remove the "Authentication" check then I can create a new user without problems.  So, how to fix this? should the "Authentication=Webserver" check be extended with a self/auto registration check?

 

  69387   Wed Aug 18 09:05:51 2021 Reply Jan Just Keijserjanjust@nikhef.nlBug reportLinux3.1.4-2Re: "New User" option does not work when Authentication=Webserver

here's the patch that I use to enable  use creation and deletion in combination with Webserver authentication.

The idea behind the patch is that if the user logged in via  "http_user" is an elog admin, then {s}he is allowed to save a random user configuration, including creating or deleting a user.

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Unfortunately I locallly don't have Webserver authentication, so I cannot check or debug. If you send me a diff that works for you, I'm happy to incorporate it.

Stefan

Jan Just Keijser wrote:

Our setup uses "Authentication=Webserver" + no automatic user registration. Thus, logbook admins should add a user by clicking "Config"  and then "New user". However, no matter what they fill in in the "new user " dialog, as soon as they hit "Save" an error pops up saying that their username (the admin one, not the new one) already exists. I found the following code:

int save_user_config(LOGBOOK * lbs, char *user, BOOL new_user)
{
   char file_name[256], str[256], *pl, user_enc[256], new_pwd[80], new_pwd2[80], smtp_host[256],
       email_addr[256], mail_from[256], mail_from_name[256], subject[256], mail_text[2000], str2[256],
       admin_user[80], url[256], error[2000], sid[32];
   int i, self_register, code, first_user;
   PMXML_NODE node, subnode, npwd; 

   /* if we outsourced the authentication, use external username */
   getcfg(lbs->name, "Authentication", str, sizeof(str));
   if (stristr(str, "Webserver")) {
      /* do not allow HTML in user name */
      strencode2(user_enc, http_user, sizeof(user_enc));
   } else {
      strencode2(user_enc, user, sizeof(user_enc));
   }

 

which seems to be the culprit:  the admin user is logged using his/her Webserver (http_user) credentials and this overrides anything that he/she might fill in.  If I remove the "Authentication" check then I can create a new user without problems.  So, how to fix this? should the "Authentication=Webserver" check be extended with a self/auto registration check?

 

 

 

Attachment 1: elog-webauth.patch
diff -Naur elog-3.1.4-3.org/src/elogd.c elog-3.1.4-3/src/elogd.c
--- elog-3.1.4-3.org/src/elogd.c	2021-02-19 09:55:03.000000000 +0100
+++ elog-3.1.4-3/src/elogd.c	2021-08-17 17:26:06.492232620 +0200
@@ -13273,7 +13273,7 @@
 
    /* if we outsourced the authentication, use external username */
    getcfg(lbs->name, "Authentication", str, sizeof(str));
-   if (stristr(str, "Webserver")) {
+   if (!is_admin_user(lbs, http_user) && stristr(str, "Webserver")) {
       /* do not allow HTML in user name */
       strencode2(user_enc, http_user, sizeof(user_enc));
    } else {
@@ -26139,6 +26139,8 @@
    }
 
    /* make sure user is logged in */
+   if (strcmp(user, http_user) == 0)
+      return TRUE;
    if (lbs && !logged_in(lbs))
       return FALSE;
 
  69462   Tue Feb 1 15:39:38 2022 Idea Jan Just Keijserjanjust@nikhef.nlInfoLinux3.1.4-3Default "Author" when replying to a log entry

what is the default value for "Author" when replying to a log entry ?  I now see that for each reply to a log entry, the value of "Author" is set to the value of the author of the original entry - this makes it very hard to see which user has replied to a particular log entry, especially when users start replying to replies etc.

This is with elog 3.1.4-3 on CentOS 7

ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6