You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think the search for members using the DN (Distinguished Name) should be adjusted in this part of the code:
Here are the two reasons why:
1/ You're recreating a filter to find the member, but you're not directly using the "user_filter" parameter set in the config.json.
For example, I’m using JumpCloud, and the class is not "objectClass=user" but "objectClass=jumpcloudUser", which I’ve already defined in the config.json like this: "user_filter": "(&(objectClass=jumpcloudUser)(memberOf=CN=jc-gitlab-users,ou=Users,o=XXXXXXXXXXX,dc=jumpcloud,dc=com))",
2/ Additionally, you already have the DN (Distinguished Name) to retrieve the user's details. Although I'm a bit of a novice with LDAP, it seems the code should be:
for user_dn, user_data in l.search_s(base=member,
scope=ldap.SCOPE_BASE,
filterstr='(objectClass=*)',
attrlist=['uid', 'mail', 'cn']):
Hi again / (Re)Bonjour @MrBE4R,
I think the search for members using the DN (Distinguished Name) should be adjusted in this part of the code:
Here are the two reasons why:
1/ You're recreating a filter to find the member, but you're not directly using the "user_filter" parameter set in the config.json.
For example, I’m using JumpCloud, and the class is not "objectClass=user" but "objectClass=jumpcloudUser", which I’ve already defined in the config.json like this:
"user_filter": "(&(objectClass=jumpcloudUser)(memberOf=CN=jc-gitlab-users,ou=Users,o=XXXXXXXXXXX,dc=jumpcloud,dc=com))",
2/ Additionally, you already have the DN (Distinguished Name) to retrieve the user's details. Although I'm a bit of a novice with LDAP, it seems the code should be:
Reference: https://superuser.com/questions/1652940/ldap-filter-to-search-for-a-dn ==> see answer a).
Just FYI, in JumpCloud LDAP, we can’t use answer b) like in your current implementation since it adheres to a apparently more standard LDAP setup.
I still really appreciate the script you made—I'm just trying to modify it to support different LDAP implementations.
Cheers,
Nicolas
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: