freeradius and Cisco VPN IPSEC profiles authentication

Alan DeKok aland at
Wed Nov 10 17:50:41 CET 2010

Jevos, Peter wrote:
> Fall-through attribute doesn’t work in this case, cause it is “falling”
> all the time ( even though it matches the condition )

  You're not getting what I'm saying.  The "users" file does *not* run
during the "authenticate" phase.  So it makes no sense to ask about
modifying the "users" file contents to change the "authenticate" process

> However, let’s think about this classic case: You have one router, with
> more profiles to connect ( different pools, dns, and so on )
> Every profile should have its authentication against different AD group

 A group does not supply authentication information.  Again, proper
terminology is *critical* to designing a good solution.  When you use
the wrong terminology, it means you're not clear on how things work, and
any solution you design will be based on incorrect assumptions.

  The solution here is to define which situations require which
authentication methods.  Usually, this is as easy as looking at the
packet.  Look for differences in the packet between what you want as
authentication method "A" versus authentication method "B".

  Then, write logic to say "when the packet looks like X, choose A.
When it looks like Y, choose B".  This is *much* simpler and saner than
"everyone try A, if it fails, try B, if that fails, try C, ..."

  Think of it this way: If you're driving to Disneyland, you look up the
destination on a map, and drive there.  You don't drive to Chicago,
realize you're in the wrong place, and ask the locals for directions to

> So it is not possible to solve it through USERS file ?

  As I've said, no.

  Alan DeKok.

More information about the Freeradius-Users mailing list