Gerrard Geldenhuis wrote:
>> When I do a bind to the consumer(slave) I also see a bind to
>> provider(master) this seems really silly. My understanding is that
>> this behaviour is caused by needing to centrally store login attempts.
>> I have raised this matter previously but just wanted to double check
>> that the behaviour I am seeing is expected and not due to a
>> misconfiguration on our part.
> Are you using Chain On Update for Binds?
We are indeed, we used that howto to set it up. Reading it now again it does say it will
use the chaining backend for binds. Why is that?
In order to have global password
policy. Let's say for example that you
have password policy which states accounts are locked out after 3
unsuccessful login attempts. If you have 5 directory servers, each with
local password policy, that effectively means an attacker has 15 tries
to guess the password instead of 3.
If we replicate changes down to the consumer how can the data be
"fresher" than the consumer?
If the password policy attributes are updated on the master(s) and
pushed to the consumer(s), they are all equally "fresh".
In order to protect our email recipients, Betfair Group use SkyScan from
MessageLabs to scan all Incoming and Outgoing mail for viruses.
389 users mailing list