When I lookup a user in AD, can the user have 2 entries across 2 controllers which are different?
If lookup #1 returns an entry and a reference, do I need to follow the reference in order to gain additional information regarding the user? Or will the reference have the same information and hence can be ignored?
userPrincipalName uniqueness is not enforced by Active Directory. It's the applications which create the user object or modify the userPrincipalName responsible for making sure it's unique across the forest. If Active Directory detects there is more than one user object with the same userPrincipalName assgined, the user will be unable to logon using that userPrincpialName. Check out this Microsoft KB for details.
There are a lot of reasons that you can receive a LDAP reference result. One common reason is that there are some child domains under a parent domain and you are trying to do a subtree search starting from a parent domain.
The domain controller from parent domain cannot provide a complete answer to your query because some of the directory partitions are being taken care by the domain controllers of the child domains. Therefore, it returns you some Subordinate References. It hints the client to follow the reference and get the complete result. For a complete list of reference result, you can check here
If I understand your question correctly, you run a LDAP query based on the userPrincipalName and already got one entry back from the parent domain. You are asking whether you should stop the query or you should follow the reference and continue the query. I would say you should always follow the reference and continue the query. If you find more than one user object with the same userPrincipalName, you probably want to handle the case properly. For example, like what Windows did, stop the user from logging on or give a warning message somewhere.
Related
In my site the guest users have access to the flow and they able to run the flow and even create records. When the flow try to find the created record the next error accrue:
Because Get_Record is passed to an action, subflow, or Lightning component, store the values of all Request_for_ChemTox__c fields that the running user has access to.
I gave access to every field for that user and still keep getting this error.
Any ideas?
It's probably not field level security (~table columns) but whole record's security (~table rows).
Check your site/community/experience settings as described in this article: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=000352970&type=1. If there's something set - the ownership of created record is immediately transferred over to that internal user and guest loses visibility. It sucks but it's there to protect you, makes sure that if you have for example Leads or Cases submitted by guest users - they immediately "disappear", guest/hacker can't report on them, experiment with IDs in the url to learn other people's data...
You can Check Setup -> Sharing Settings for this object and create new sharing rule. (I can't upload image right now but start making new sharing rule with step 2 "rule type = Guest user access, based on criteria")
https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.networks_guest_record_default_owner_best_practices.htm&type=5 has some good tips too:
If you’d like to create a different experience for guest users, use
flows in System Mode to redirect guest users to a different custom
screen after they create a record
We've created an application using SCIM 2 SDK from PingIdentity for provisioning with Azure AD. Custom mapping is set up and working.
However, when the user is CREATED, all of the fields are included in the import, but only a few fields are included in the provisioning step and sent to our application. Provisioning needs to run a second time on that user to UPDATE in order for all the fields to be included. Amongst other things, this means that first and last name are not split and it only sends the displayname (which ends up as firstname on our end).
For some users in normal provisioning, it can take days between the create and update runs so we're missing data for a long time.
Anyone know how can we can test for what's causing this and solve it so all the fields are included in the initial CREATE run for a user?
Here are the attribute mapping settings: https://imgur.com/ypfAAmD
And an example log of when the user is created with only basic fields: https://imgur.com/iOXACJh
vs. when the user is updated with all the other fields: https://imgur.com/UqDNyCv
I'm a product manager at Microsoft that works on the provisioning service and our SCIM client.
The behavior you're seeing occurs when you have attributes that are not part of the SCIM core schema included as "short" names. Attributes not defined in the SCIM core schema (RFC 7643) should have full URN syntax. Something to the effect of urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:appName:2.0:User:attributeName is commonly used by other implementations. The shaky behavior you're seeing where the AAD provisioning service fails to send these attribute values via a POST but later includes them in a PATCH comes down to different code paths in the AAD provisioning service, and the PATCH code happens to handle this differently than the POST code. This is purely by chance, however, and isn't an intentional design choice. At some future point I'm hoping we'll make this more consistent and disallow incorrectly structured attribute names entirely.
If you adjust your attribute names to align with the guidance in the SCIM spec's schema RFC and provide the attributes with fully defined URNs, you should see consistent behavior that works on both POST and PATCH.
I am using AWS cognito for user authentication in the application that I designed. And where ever there is a need for user audit in the application, I have used the id from cognito as if it is a foreign key from another table(I am using a relational DB).
Even though this works, this approach somehow feels improper. Is there any other proper way to design this?
In my application, the user logs in with his email address (common scenario). Hence, by construction the email address is a unique identifier both in cognito and in my database.
My database creates a user id for each new user, and that is the main identifier I use in my app (note that this identifier has nothing to do with cognito).
Cognito also assigns an id to each user (which it calls "username"), but I never reference that id (nor have I ever felt the need to reference it). I have been in production for several years, and I have never regretted this decision.
Upside of not linking user ids:
full flexibility (e.g. I can decide that I want to create a new user Object in my database for a particular cognito user. I can keep the previous user e.g. as a backup, even though it is not linked to the cognito user).
less work: i don't need to make sure the ids in my system are in line with those in cognito.
Downside of not linking user ids:
maybe it's faster to query cognito using the username field than the email field? maybe that could be an advantage for some use cases?
I'm retrieving info from an Active Directory setup via LDAP (using Python, although that's probably not important). I can retrieve a specific user account via a search command, and I get a few dozen attributes, presumably the ones that Active Directory is set to return by default. These do not include "msDS-UserPasswordExpiryTimeComputed" attribute, which is an AD computed attribute that doesn't come back by default.
I can request it by using the attrlist parameter in the Python search call (attrlist=["msDS-UserPasswordExpiryTimeComputed", "sAMAccountName"]), but I then have to know and enumerate all the attributes I'm interested in. I was wondering if there is any LDAP syntax for 'attrlist' that would indicate that I want all the default attributes that would have come back anyway, plus any others I might explicitly indicate? Perhaps some sort of wildcard like attrlist=['*', 'msDS-UserPasswordExpireTimeComputed'], for instance. Or do I have to make one call to get all the default attributes, and a second to retrieve others?
Also, how does an AD installation determine what attributes are returned by default? Is it standard to AD, or customizable by admins?
I am trying to add a user to Active Directory through an MPS Web Service. I've been trying a long time to find the correct LDAP-url to use to tell it to add the new user to the Users group. I've tried things like:
LDAP://XXXX.YYY/OU=Users,DC=XXXX,DC=YYY
LDAP://XXXX.YYY/CN=Users,DC=XXXX,DC=YYY
LDAP://XXXX.YYY/DN=Users,DC=XXXX,DC=YYY
It seems the "farthest" I've gotten is an error that says I have given it an invalid Customer.
I really don't have a lot of experience with LDAP (pretty much none at all), so even just a good LDAP and Active Directory tutorial would be extremely useful (even that is eluding me right now). Thanks!
I've since lookup up the actual distinguished name in ADSI Edit, which was LDAP://XXXX.YYY/CN=Users,DC=XXXX,DC=YYY, but still have no luck.
You have error in your LDAP string.
Let's have examle:
user with account name User1 in organization unit Office1 where contoso.com is domain.
Object:
contoso.com/Users/Office1/User1
LDAP Path is:
LDAP://CN=User1,OU=Office1,OU=Users,DC=contoso,DC=com
Note that there is no slash in path itself
CN = Common Name
OU = Organizational Unit
DC = Domain Component
You can start with:
LDAP Query Basics
Creating a list of Users and their e-mail addresses in Exchange 2000
How Can I Get a List of All the Users Whose Passwords Never Expire?
if your domain is xxxx.yyyy.zzzz and you are search for all users; your path is:
LDAP://CN=Users,DC=xxxx,DC=yyyy,DC=zzzz
means every dot in domain replace with dc=
More directly, the default Users container (not a group) in a default Active Directory install would be CN=Users,dc=domain,dc=com
You are not clear if you are having trouble adding a user to a group, or if you are having trouble creating a user in a specific location.