Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Re: Info on MS CLDAP wanted ...

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: Graeme Lunt <graeme.lunt@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:53:55 +0100
Hi,

> > In particular, the ntVer as part of the filter for the netlogon rpc is
> > not a string
>
> At least as I read RFC 2251, AttributeValues in LDAP filters aren't
> necessarily text strings; the type is OCTET STRING.  As I remember, I've
> seen what appear to be GUIDs as LDAP attributes, and they're represented
> in binary, not text.

Yes, attribute values may be binary - the most common example is
certificate - where as string representation wouldn't cut it (as you
couldn't very the signature).
LDAP got itself into a bit of a mess with binary attributes though,
with the ";binary" annotation to attribute names, and it's still
unclear.

> RFC 2252 has a language for describing the syntax of attributes, and
> OpenLDAP has a bunch of files describing attribute syntaxes.  Should the
> LDAP dissector read files of that sort and use them to figure out how to
> display attribute values?  It says they should, wherever possible, be
> text, but says it shouldn't be assumed that they are:

I have exactly this problem with my X.500 dissectors, which is where
the LDAP issue comes from. Basically, attributes as "ANY defined-by
TYPE" - where ANY is an ASN.1 encoding (or syntax) and TYPE is an OID.

I introduced a "syntax" registration into packet_ber.c/asn2eth so that
a dissector could register a encoding under a given name, and then a
simple text file to associate a TYPE with a syntax. Thus a user can
dissect their own schema (set of types) by modifying the text file
(assuming all syntaxes are implemented).
As the simple text file also supplies a name for the OID, it is in
conflict with the MIB approach currently being discussed.

I did post these changes for syntax handling a while back, but they
were not accepted. Perhaps MIBs are the way to go as they do have a
(simple) syntax association.

Getting back to the original question, I would imagine there would
just be some MS specific syntaxes to implement.

Graeme