rlm_raw in 3.1.x
paul at freedomwifi.com.au
Mon Jul 6 15:36:34 CEST 2015
Thanks for the response and I fully appreciate your position on it, but
personally think it's useful functionality that should be available if
someone wants to use it. My only current option to truly allow dynamic
clients is to run the dynamic clients with 0.0.0.0/0 which deems it
completely insecure anyway. If IP addresses of nas are constantly changing
then the IP isn't a value that can be used to securely identify the device
anyway so it becomes a bit null and void. We're then left processing the
rest of the packet to find the same data we can get from raw and just
rejecting the request later down the track.
In the scenario of the public wifi service provider (eg something like
hotspotsystem, cloud4wi etc), generally the hotspot is running on embedded
devices with limited resources so the TLS option and local proxy is just
not feasible. Plus it really impacts the "off the shelf" approach to
providing such a service.
Would just be nice if the option was there for those who want to use it or
some alternative that can provide similar functionality then we can.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Alan DeKok <aland at deployingradius.com>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Paul Trappitt <paul at freedomwifi.com.au> wrote:
> > Thanks, yeah I had found that post. I guess it's not really of much help
> > though. Why is it wrong and what is a valid alternative? Seems as though
> > the dynamic clients module is a bit "cut off at the knees" in a public
> > service provider scenario if all it can access is the src IP address.
> It's about security. The various fields in the packet are just data.
> Anyone can invent anything, and put the data there. Forging source IPs and
> having them route across the wider internet is a lot more difficult.
> If you need random machines to be RADIUS clients, you should use RADIUS
> over TLS. v3 supports it. You can put a local proxy onto the remote site,
> and then have that proxy connect to a central server. The central server
> can then do certificate authentication of the edge machines.
> Anything else is insecure, and terrible in practice. It doesn't matter
> if it's convenient. Not using protection is convenient. But the side
> effects can be grim.
> If you want to use rlm_raw in v3, go right ahead. But the build system
> has changed. The internal APIs have changed. You'll have to know C in
> order to get it working.
> Alan DeKok.
> List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See
More information about the Freeradius-Devel