NetAuth uses a somewhat unique group system, so lets take a look at how this works in detail.
In most directory systems, there are groups. These groups directly contain members and the members can be listed to have membership in these groups. In some directory systems, its possible to nest groups. This usually has the effect of saying ‘foo has these members, plus all the members of subgroup bar’. If you want to find out who is in foo, you should also request the membership of bar. Similarly, if you are in group bar, you may not have an easy way to find out that you are also a member of foo indirectly. NetAuth uses a different style of expansion to this.
Direct memberships work exactly like the group file. You add an entity to a group and they’re a member of it. This is likely sufficient for 90% of all use cases that most people will care about, and as such is the more optimized case. Memberships are stored as a list of groups on each entity, and are queried with extreme speed.
This type of membership would be equivalent to the NIS group map. Unfortunately, this style of mapping has two key problems. First, it requires the client to resolve more things. As explained above if you want to find out who is a member of ‘foo’ you must also know who is a member of ‘bar’ and add these members to the list you got from ‘foo’. Second, this type of membership system necessitates a standalone service to the side of the directory for doing policy based grouping. For example disabling an account either needs a field on the entity to disable it, or the consultation of a second group to determine if it is disabled.
The first type of expansion that NetAuth supports is very straightforward. You can tell a group to include another group. This directly includes the other group’s memberships and is transparent to a client looking up members. The difference between this system and the nested groups described above is that the client is not aware an expansion took place. The client just asked for the members of ‘foo’ and got all of them, even those who have indirect membership in ‘foo’ via ‘bar’.
These exapansions can be nested arbitrarily deep and can include arbitrarily many groups at each inclusion level, though for sanity of the systems administrator, care should be taken not to create overly complex membership graphs.
Exclude expansions are the second type of expansion that NetAuth supports and are a bit more involved to understand. These expansions work by ‘pruning’ members of a group if they are also members of a subgroup. Take for example the directory structure shown below:
ALL | |-group1 | | | \-foo | \-group2 | \-foo
If you were to query the membership of group1 with no expansion rules, then as you would expect the members list would contain ‘foo’.
ALL | |-group1 | | | |-EXCLUDE:group2 | \-foo | \-group2 | \-foo
Now if we add an exclude expansion to group1 to exclude the members of group2 and run the same request, something interesting happens: group1 has no members anymore! Ok, to clear up what’s happening here, lets modify the directory a little bit so that it now looks like this:
ALL | |-group1 | | | |-EXCLUDE:group2 | |-foo | \-bar | \-group2 | \-foo
Now if we query the membership of group1 again we have one member ‘bar’. What is happening here? When the exclude relation was added to group1 this instructed NetAuth to filter out anyone who was a member of group2 when returning the membership of group1. But, and this is the important bit, the members are still in group1.
ALL | |-group1 | | | |-foo | \-bar | \-group2 | \-foo
If we remove the exclude rule and query the membership of group1 again it now contains ‘bar’ and ‘foo’. The ‘foo’ entity was never removed, so they still maintain membership. Here’s a real-world example that might spark thoughts of how this can be used:
ALL | |-PermitLogin | | | |-INCLUDE:Users | \-EXCLUDE:Restricted | |-Users | | | |-Alice | |-Bob | |-Eve | |-<Many More Entities> | \-Restricted | \-Eve
In this example, we have entities that are permitted to log in to a system as members of the PermitLogin group via an include rule targeting the Users group (all users are permitted to log in). Not surprisingly Eve was caught trying to install a keylogger on Bob’s computer, so Eve is restricted from logging in now. But this is temporary as we expect Eve will learn from this experience, so we don’t really want to remove Eve from the Users group, since that’s going to require noting down somewhere and some rules to put back later.
Instead we can have another group called ‘Restricted’ and this group’s members shall be excluded from PermitLogin. By putting Eve in this group, PermitLogin no longer will return Eve as a member since the EXCLUDE rule has filtered her out.
Expansions All The Way Down
You can actually nest includes and excludes as deep as you like to compose arbitrarily complex logical membership graphs based on the include and exclude rules. Do be careful though, as each rule has a non-trivial cost to calculate and the mental cost of maintaining a large tree like this is also quite high.