Skip to main content

Bind Response: InvalidCredentials

Sometimes I get the strangest things that come across my desk. As a manager, I don’t have a lot of time for troubleshooting so when I do get ahold of something, it’s fun to tear apart. I told my team about my findings. One of them asked how I arrived at the answer… so I thought I’d blog it just in case it interests anyone else.

As a favor to a coworker, I looked into an application configuration problem that was described as such:

  • Application is configured for LDAP.
  • All users can successfully log into the application except one person.
  • This one person is also the administrator of the application.

The app owner indicated they were seeing timeout errors in their logs. There was no denying it. The call was timing out:

Servlet.service() for servlet dispatcher threw exception
javax.naming.NamingException: LDAP response read timed out, timeout used:-1ms.; remaining name ''
                at com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection.readReply(Connection.java:483)
                at com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapClient.getSearchReply(LdapClient.java:639)
                at com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapClient.search(LdapClient.java:562)
                at com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtx.doSearch(LdapCtx.java:1985)
                at com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtx.searchAux(LdapCtx.java:1847)
                at com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtx.c_search(LdapCtx.java:1772)

To respond to that, the first thing we did was check the LDAP configuration to make sure it wasn’t misconfigured anywhere. I couldn’t tell if they what it was timing out to. A bind request? A search request? Who knows.

What little there was in the ldap.properties file looked appropriately set so they went back to scour more logs. I asked them to verify there was no application wonkiness by making someone else an admin and having them log on. Negative. All good. Now we’re getting somewhere.

Of course, you never find the log that tells you exactly what’s going on. I’m pretty sure this is why packet tracing became a thing. I asked for a trace. This is what the trace revealed:

image

Now we can confirm that indeed the user’s attempt to bind fails. He had no problem logging into other things though -- his workstation for example. I told the app team that the user was not providing his credentials properly, or it was an application problem. They weren’t sure where to go next. I figured it had to be the logon form, though, so I tried one more thing.404

I asked the user to tell me the character length of his password and verified the character length of the form. The form truncated at least two characters off his password. The password is masked and at such a length that you might not realize little dots weren’t continuing to show up. :o)

PROBLEM SOLVED! The LDAP response InvalidCredentials was indeed correct. Once you get the application logs out of the way and go straight down to the packet, you can see so much more. That’s my lesson of the day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

using preloadpkgonsite.exe to stage compressed copies to child site distribution points

UPDATE: john marcum sent me a kind email to let me know about a problem he ran into with preloadpkgonsite.exe in the new SCCM Toolkit V2 where under certain conditions, packages will not uncompress.  if you are using the v2 toolkit, PLEASE read this blog post before proceeding.   here’s a scenario that came up on the mssms@lists.myitforum.com mailing list. when confronted with a situation of large packages and wan links, it’s generally best to get the data to the other location without going over the wire. in this case, 75gb. :/ the “how” you get the files there is really not the most important thing to worry about. once they’re there and moved to the appropriate location, preloadpkgonsite.exe is required to install the compressed source files. once done, a status message goes back to the parent server which should stop the upstream server from copying the package source files over the wan to the child site. anyway, if it’s a relatively small amount of packages, you can

How to Identify Applications Using Your Domain Controller

Problem Everyone has been through it. We've all had to retire or replace a domain controller at some point in our checkered collective experiences. While AD provides very intelligent high availability, some applications are just plain dumb. They do not observe site awareness or participate in locating a domain controller. All they want is the name or IP of one domain controller which gets hardcoded in a configuration file somewhere, deeply embedded in some file folder or setting that you are never going to find. How do you look at a DC and decide which applications might be doing it? Packet trace? Logs? Shut it down and wait for screaming? It seems very tedious and nearly impossible. Potential Solution Obviously I wouldn't even bother posting this if I hadn't run across something interesting. :) I ran across something in draftcalled Domain Controller Isolation. Since it's in draft, I don't know that it's published yet. HOWEVER, the concept is based off

sccm: content hash fails to match

back in 2008, I wrote up a little thing about how distribution manager fails to send a package to a distribution point . even though a lot of what I wrote that for was the failure of packages to get delivered to child sites, the result was pretty much the same. when the client tries to run the advertisement with an old package, the result was a failure because of content mismatch. I went through an ordeal recently capturing these exact kinds of failures and corrected quite a number of problems with these packages. the resulting blog post is my effort to capture how these problems were resolved. if nothing else, it's a basic checklist of things you can use.   DETECTION status messages take a look at your status messages. this has to be the easiest way to determine where these problems exist. unfortunately, it requires that a client is already experiencing problems. there are client logs you can examine as well such as cas, but I wasn't even sure I was going to have enough m