Oxymoron or how to implement 7 directed MicrosoftAD protocol authentication, 2 of which are LDAP and 2 Authorizations
Today I want to tell you about an amazing method of setting goals for project management. The narration will be in the form of a retelling of a meeting held in one very serious company.
I will note the fact that, in truth, such an approach actually raises the efficiency of the project management process to an unattainable height, allowing the quasi-activity to be produced at an extremely productive level of entropy.
eight)
So, Friday night. An ordinary meeting in one very serious company.
')
“Colleagues,” says Morkovyeva, “today a new agenda has arrived at the team. In the process of targeting, a major project was arranged in front of our scrum team. We received a sprint backlog for retrospection, in the scopa of which there is a demand, to implement several relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentications. Are we ready to accept a new stream?
- Petrov - Who came to where? What are you ready for? Take the trouble to communicate in normal language.
Morkovyeva pretends not to hear.
- Of course, - Nedozaitsev enters. He is a director, and always ready to take on the problem that someone from the team will have to bear. However, he immediately clarifies: - We can this?
Sidoriahin, head of the engineering department, nods hastily:
- Yes of course. Here we just have Petrov, he is our best expert in the implementation of relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentication. We specifically invited him to the meeting so that he expressed his competent opinion.
“Wait, about what ...” Petrov begins to speak, but he does not have time to finish.
“Very nice,” continues Morkovyeva. - Well, I, as a director of projects, you all know. And this is Lenochka, she is a consultant-consultant on IT technologies in our organization.
Lena is covered with paint and smiles shyly. She recently graduated from economics and has the same relation to IT as a log to a pencil because it is wooden.
- So, - says Morkovyeva. - We need to implement 7 relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentication. All of them must be strictly directed, and in addition, some need to implement LDAP protocol, and some more - Authorization. Do you think this is real?
“No,” says Petrov.
“Let's not rush to answer, Petrov,” says Sidoryakhin. - The task is set, and it needs to be solved. You are a professional, Petrov. Do not give us a reason to believe that you are not a professional.
“You see,” Petrov explains, “firstly, its composition is not a task, secondly, it is not consistent in content, and thirdly, your term“ MicrosoftAD Authentication ”implies that the authentication protocols inherent in MicrosoftAD are used.” It is not only impossible to implement LDAP authentication in “MicrosoftAD”, it provides for authentication, but very close to the impossible, because MicrosoftAD is already on its own ...
In the second half of the sentence, Sidoryakhin mentally “freezes”, unable to absorb the information.
- Petrov, let's finally go beyond the framework of patterned thinking and connect creativity. - Suddenly, Sidoryakhin saves the situation by intercepting the initiative. - Well, what does your unsubstantiated "impossible" mean?
- So I'm telling you ...
- Could it be as simple as that? Without these your "difficulties"? - connects Morkovyeva. - Human language?
- Oh well. I'll try.
“Perhaps there are people using access to other directory services anonymously, for whom the authentication protocol will not really matter, but I’m not sure that the target audience of your project consists solely of such people. In addition, it should be borne in mind that each system has its own means and methods of interaction, such as, for example, a dialogue in Russian or English. Those. If you…
- That is, in principle, it is possible, we understand you correctly, Petrov? - asks Morkovyova.
Petrov realizes that he has gone too far with imagery.
“Let's just say,” he says. - Authentication, as such, can be implemented by completely different protocols. But in order to get “MicrosoftAD” authentication, you should use only “MicrosoftAD” protocols, and it is not necessary to use all available protocols, i.e.
- Petrov, you do not confuse us, please. You have just said that this is possible, and now you say that it is impossible !? Be finally consistent in your actions.
Petrov silently curses his talkativeness.
- No, you misunderstood me. I just wanted to say that in some extremely rare situations, the authentication protocol will not matter, but even then - authentication will still not be performed by the MicrosoftAD protocols. You see, it will not be "MicrosoftAD" authentication! She will be different. And you need "MicrosoftAD", i.e. Kerberos, NTLM or some outdated ...
- Petrov, what are you really. You have to be modest. Do not stick out your competencies! - Offensive Nedozaitsev.
Excuse me, says Petrov, but you meant competence and I ...
- It doesn’t matter - cuts Nedozaitsev - you as a professional should know that this is not acceptable.
There is a brief silence, in which the quiet, intense buzzing of synapses is clearly heard.
“What if,” conceived by the idea, Nedozaitsev says, “implement its“ IBM Domino ”protocol? I heard such a program we have.
“It still won't work,” Petrov shakes his head. - If you implement “IBM Domino” - the protocols inherent in the “IBM Domino” product will be used.
Silence again. This time it is interrupted by Petrov himself.
- And I still do not understand ... What did you mean when you talk about authentication by authorization protocol?
Morkoveva looks at him condescendingly, like a kind teacher at a lagging student.
- Well, how can I explain to you? .. Petrov, don't you know what “Authorization” is?
“I know, however ...”
- And what is “MicrosoftAD authentication”, I hope you also do not need to explain?
“No, don't, but ...”
- Here you go. You implement us "MicrosoftAD" authentication authorization protocol.
Petrov pauses for a second, thinking about the situation, and begins to feel a powerful feeling of the coming cognitive dissonance.
- And how should the result look like, please, please describe? How do you imagine that!? Do you have any idea that authentication and authorization do not even have an analogous purpose, not to mention that authorization itself is not a protocol, but ...
- Petrov, we have not a lecture hall here, but a meeting. - interrupts Nedozaitsev.
- Well, oh, Petro-o-s! - joins Sidoryakhin. - Well, let's not ... We have a kindergarten? Who is an expert on MicrosoftAD authentication, Morkyov or you?
“I'm just trying to clarify for myself the details of the task ...”
There is an awkward pause. Morkovyeva looks at Petrov with bewilderment.
- Yes, where it’s already more detailed, says Morkovyeva, you need to realize the task so that the result, firstly, is correct, and secondly, it’s completely satisfactory.
- In terms of? - “stumbles” in mid-sentence Petrov. - How is this “right” and what does “completely satisfied” mean?
- How do you usually solve the problem? So, so and so. - draws Morkovyova dashes in some papers, and then throws a pen and claps his hand twice on them.
- Of course, and I do it there, there and still there - Petrov is not being held.
- Petro-ov! Do not ernichayte - Sidoryahin stops him. - you wanted clarification?
- Well, what is there to you that is incomprehensible? .. - Nedozaytsev again gets into the conversation. - Here Morkovyeva understands everything. And Lenochka nods understandingly, although she hasn’t been working with us yet. Everything is clear except for you.
- Let us suppose. Then explain to me, please, - Petrov begins demonstratively politely, - what in your understanding means “relevant“ MicrosoftAD ”authentication”? How well do you understand what is being said?
- Well, Petrov. It is obvious. Relevant will be the one that is relevant. You know what “relevant” is?
“Yes, but ...”
- And what is “authentication” clear to you too?
“Of course, but ...”
- So what do you explain something? Petrov, well, let's not stoop to unproductive disputes. The task is set, the task is clear and clear. Understandable to all those present. If you have specific questions, ask.
- Excuse me, - Petrov is not keeping up. And where is the problem itself? Where is the information corresponding to the concept of the problem? The task is given, the condition and the question with the well-known method of solution. Please submit them for review!
- Petrov! Are you starting again ?! - Nedozaitsev starts to get angry.
“You're a professional,” adds Sidoryakhin. “What unethical hints.” Behave correctly.
- Yes. - adds Morkovyova, - Well, what for hints about understanding? - We are girls, and you behave like this ... It should be a shame. Shame on you
“Okay,” Petrov surrenders. - God is with him, with her, with relevance. But you have something else with a focus? ..
- Yes, - readily confirms Morkovyeva. - quite right, 7 authentications and all are strictly directed.
- Directed to where? - clarifies Petrov.
Morkovyeva begins to look through his papers.
“Uh-uh,” she finally says. - Well, how would ... be sent to where they should be sent ... it's obvious - Looks at the paper - well, that's it ... there and there. Each other. Well, or whatever ... And so everything is clear. - Petrov, I thought you were an expert in the areas of relevant authentications. - Finally she is.
Petrov makes inarticulate sounds, trying to control himself.
“Yes, of course he knows,” Sidoryakhin flaps his arms. - Professionals are we here, or not professionals? ..
- Colleagues, - Petrov clears his throat, finally taking himself in hand for another attempt - the data exchange during authentication, in general, passes only between 2 points, i.e. authentication is directed from subject to object and vice versa. All seven authentication streams cannot be simultaneously directed against each other. This is the question of determining the authenticity of the subject, i.e. the authenticity of who is trying to access the object. In other words, it checks whether the user is who he claims to be or not! These are the basics of security.
Morkovyeva shakes his head, driving away the looming ghost of a long-forgotten engineering education.
Nedozaitsev slaps his hand on the table:
- Petrov, let's not have this: "Basics of Security, Basics of Security." Let's be mutually polite. We will not make hints and roll up to insults. Let's maintain a constructive dialogue. Here are not idiots gathered.
“I think so too,” says Sidoryakhin. - Besides, frankly, you do not really help with your questions. Petrov, it seems that you are complicating everything specifically so that you do nothing. Do you agree? - Appeals to Carrot and Lena.
Morkovyeva and Lenochka approvingly nod.
Petrov (irritably) pulls a piece of paper towards him.
“Good,” he says. - Come on, I'll draw you. Here are the authentication flows between the subject “S1” and the object “O”. So?
Morkovyeva nods affirmatively.
“We are drawing streams for the second subject ...” says Petrov. - “S2” and “O” - they similarly exchange data. Are the flows directed bilaterally?
“Well,” says Morkovyev in an attempt to make sense.
- Yes, they are directed. - helps Petrov.
- Well, you see! - happily exclaims Morkovyeva.
- Wait, that's not all. Now let's pay attention to the scheme as a whole, in the part of the subject “S2”, “S1” and the object “O”. Are the authentication flows from each subject in relation to the object mutually directed against each other?
There is silence, followed by a thoughtful silence in an attempt to stop the Brownian movement of thoughts.
Without waiting for an answer, Petrov answers himself:
- Yes, for the first authentication they are directed at each other. In the second, also directed at each other. But the 1st and 2nd authentication between each other are independent, isolated.
There is silence. Then Morkovyeva gets up from her seat and, rounding the table, comes in from the rear of Petrov, peering over his shoulder.
- Well ... - she says hesitantly, - Probably, yes.
“That's the point,” says Petrov, trying to consolidate the success achieved. - While “S1” to “O” is authenticated, their streams are directed at each other, since data exchange is two-way. As soon as another subject “S2” tries to perform authentication for connecting to the system, i.e. to the object "O", then the initiated information flow ...
- Can I have a pen? - asks Morkovyov, interrupting Petrov's winning speech.
Petrov gives the pen. Morkovyeva cautiously conducts a few hesitant movements.
- And if so?..
Petrov sighs.
- This is called ... No, this is not all directed at each other. It is not mutually directed, it is a “many to one” model or a star, i.e subjects initiate network connections in the direction of a single access object. As it should be. In addition, there are three, not seven, but it does not matter.
Morkovyeva purses her lips.
- Why are they signed by “IBM Domino”? - suddenly asks Nedozaitsev.
“Oh, by the way,” supports Sidoryakhin. - I wanted to ask myself.
Petrov blinks several times, looking at the drawing.
“Well, I'm using the example of IBM Domino,” he finally says. “I’m just to demonstrate ... with an example different from MicrosoftAD .... He throws up his hands Petrov.
- Well, maybe this is the point? - impatiently interrupts Nedozaytsev in the tone of a man who has just figured out a complex concept and hurries to share it with others, until the thought is lost. - You have authentication written "IBM Domino". You write "MicrosoftAD", and let's see what happens. This is obvious! How did you not guess before that, Petrov?
“It will be the same, but only with MicrosoftAD,” says Petrov confidently.
- Well, somehow the same thing? - says Nedozaitsev. - How can you be sure if you have not even tried? Write "MicrosoftAD", and we will see and decide. Well, what do you braw!
- Well, honestly, colleagues, he wants us to persuade him! - addresses to those present Nedozaitsev.
“Colleagues, I have not tried this with each of our systems, the infrastructure used,” admits Petrov. - but I can confidently state that the result will be identical, since the principle of authenticity ...
- And what have you not prepared? - Sidoryahin reproachfully speaks, interrupting Petrov. - They knew that there would be a meeting ... That serious people will come, and you are so disrespectful of their time ... It is not good, Petrov, it is not good ...
“There you are,” confirms Morkovyev, “but he took a manner that disrespectfully treated his colleagues.”
“I can definitely tell you,” says Petrov in despair, “that with MicrosoftAD the protocols will be exactly the same!”
“You yourself told us last time,” Sidoryakhin says, “that you need to implement MicrosoftAD authentication using MicrosoftAD protocols.” Here, I even wrote myself down - demonstrating the records to my colleagues, Sidoryahin shakes his head reproachfully - And on the leaflet themselves, they are indicated as “IBM Domino”. Is this “MicrosoftAD” authentication your way? Oh, Petrov? Well, it is impossible so - Sidoryahin ashamed of him.
“By the way, yes,” remarks Nedozaitsev. - I also asked you about the “IBM Domino” protocol. What did you answer me?
Petrova suddenly saves Lenochka, with interest studying his scheme from his place.
“I think I understand,” she says. “You're not talking about the protocol now, are you?” Do you have this one, what do you call it? Are there atectifi directions?
“Authentication, yes,” Petrov responded gratefully. “It’s not related to the protocols used by IBM Domino.” Moreover…
“Everything, you have confused me completely,” says Nedozaitsev, looking from one participant of the meeting to another. - So we have problems with what? With the protocol or direction?
Morkovyeva makes bewildered sounds and shakes her head. She is also confused.
“With nothing, but with whom,” Petrov says quietly to himself, already realizing the whole surrealism of what is happening.
- Petrov! - raises the voice of Nedozaitsev - still hearing him.
There comes a short general silence.
“I can't understand anything,” Nedozaytsev breaks the silence, looking at his fingers locked in the lock. - There is a task. All you need is 7 relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentications. I understand that there would be dozens of them! .. But then there are only seven. The task is simple. The task is clear and understandable. Our customers want 7 relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentications. Right?
Morkovyeva nods.
“And Sidoryakhin doesn’t see the problem either,” says Nedozaitsev. - I'm right, Sidoryakhin? .. Well, here. So what's stopping us from doing the elementary task?
“Logic,” Petrov says with a sigh.
- Well, you just do not pay attention to her, that's all! - with a confident voice says Morkoveva - You're an adult, Petrov, do you have any opinion? Why do you go on about a colleague?
Petrov is silent, collecting thoughts. One after another, colorful metaphors are born in his brain that would allow to convey surrealism to those around him, but as luck would have it, all of them, putting on words, begin invariably with the word “Bl * t!”, Completely inappropriate in the framework of a business conversation.
Tired of waiting for an answer, Nedozaitsev says:
- Petrov, you answer simply - can you do it or just don’t want it? We understand that you are a narrow specialist and do not see the big picture. Not able to appreciate the complexity of organizational problems. I can assure you that we have already comprehensively analyzed everything! You just have to do it. But is it easy to implement some 7 relevant authentications? You are the best in this, and for two hours we have been discussing some nonsense and can’t come to a decision.
— , — — , .
— , — . — : «! !» ! , . ! - .
:
— , , , .
.
— . — , . — , …
— . — .
— , .. , — — , . , .. , . ?
— ? — . — , .
— LDAP, — . — , ?
— , — .
— «»?
, , , :
- What?
— , «». . . . , , . , . , … . …
— , — .
— ?
— , «» «» GUI . , . . . . .
— , — . — , . . . . , …
— , — .
— , ?.. — .
— , , - — . — , «».
— , — , . — «Ok» GUI «F1» , .
— , — . — «» , , ? . .
.
— , — .
.
— ? What are we doing?
— «MicrosoftAD» , — . — «MicrosoftAD» , LDAP, . Yes? ?
— , — , .
.
— … , , ?.. ?.. ?..
— , — . — «SharePoint»! ?
— , . — , . — , …
— , — — , , DevOps. . … — . — , , , DevOps. — .
— ? ? What are you talking about?- Petrov asks puzzled.
Petrov's remark is ignored, discussing the newly emerging proposal among themselves.
“Oh, by the way,” says Morkovyeva. - Let's "SharePoint" also immediately discuss, so as not to meet twice.
“Petrov,” Nedozaytsev turns to Petrov. - We can it?
- What does SharePoint have to do with me? - Petrov asks in surprise.
- How?! - Helen exclaims in surprise. - But he's Microsoft!
“You see, even Lena knows this,” confirms Morkovyeva.
Petrov is stupidly silent, trembling with his fingertips.
“Petrov,” asks Nedozaitsev. - So you can or can not? A simple question. Should we persuade you again?
— , — , — , , …
— , — . — , , . , . . , , – .
— , . — . — …
, .
— ? — .
— , — . — , … , ?.. — — . … !
- Petrov, on arrival you report on the work. And do not tighten. - says Morkovyeva, putting patterns in front of him. - Write a plan yourself? Is it not difficult for you? That's agreed. Do not forget to send it to me tonight. Closing documents on commissioning, as usual, upon arrival, issue in the accounting department. Everything. . . — .
— , — , — , ? , ? ? ?
, . , . .
, , , , . .
— , . — — .
- Can I also ask you? - blushing, says Helen. - You, when you will program “SharePoint” ... Can you program it in the form of “WebSphere”?
Petrov sighs.
“I can do anything,” he says. - I can absolutely everything. I'm a professional.
Hopefully, this example will help someone in real life to confront the dibbers.
Part of the context has been specifically preserved to leave the recognition of the original source.
Based on the story “Meeting” by Alexei Berezin. I thank him for his work, which led him to spend more than a dozen hours creating an alternative version with technical content. That was hard.
Data source
I will note the fact that, in truth, such an approach actually raises the efficiency of the project management process to an unattainable height, allowing the quasi-activity to be produced at an extremely productive level of entropy.
eight)
So, Friday night. An ordinary meeting in one very serious company.
')
“Colleagues,” says Morkovyeva, “today a new agenda has arrived at the team. In the process of targeting, a major project was arranged in front of our scrum team. We received a sprint backlog for retrospection, in the scopa of which there is a demand, to implement several relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentications. Are we ready to accept a new stream?
- Petrov - Who came to where? What are you ready for? Take the trouble to communicate in normal language.
Morkovyeva pretends not to hear.
- Of course, - Nedozaitsev enters. He is a director, and always ready to take on the problem that someone from the team will have to bear. However, he immediately clarifies: - We can this?
Sidoriahin, head of the engineering department, nods hastily:
- Yes of course. Here we just have Petrov, he is our best expert in the implementation of relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentication. We specifically invited him to the meeting so that he expressed his competent opinion.
“Wait, about what ...” Petrov begins to speak, but he does not have time to finish.
“Very nice,” continues Morkovyeva. - Well, I, as a director of projects, you all know. And this is Lenochka, she is a consultant-consultant on IT technologies in our organization.
Lena is covered with paint and smiles shyly. She recently graduated from economics and has the same relation to IT as a log to a pencil because it is wooden.
- So, - says Morkovyeva. - We need to implement 7 relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentication. All of them must be strictly directed, and in addition, some need to implement LDAP protocol, and some more - Authorization. Do you think this is real?
“No,” says Petrov.
“Let's not rush to answer, Petrov,” says Sidoryakhin. - The task is set, and it needs to be solved. You are a professional, Petrov. Do not give us a reason to believe that you are not a professional.
“You see,” Petrov explains, “firstly, its composition is not a task, secondly, it is not consistent in content, and thirdly, your term“ MicrosoftAD Authentication ”implies that the authentication protocols inherent in MicrosoftAD are used.” It is not only impossible to implement LDAP authentication in “MicrosoftAD”, it provides for authentication, but very close to the impossible, because MicrosoftAD is already on its own ...
In the second half of the sentence, Sidoryakhin mentally “freezes”, unable to absorb the information.
- Petrov, let's finally go beyond the framework of patterned thinking and connect creativity. - Suddenly, Sidoryakhin saves the situation by intercepting the initiative. - Well, what does your unsubstantiated "impossible" mean?
- So I'm telling you ...
- Could it be as simple as that? Without these your "difficulties"? - connects Morkovyeva. - Human language?
- Oh well. I'll try.
“Perhaps there are people using access to other directory services anonymously, for whom the authentication protocol will not really matter, but I’m not sure that the target audience of your project consists solely of such people. In addition, it should be borne in mind that each system has its own means and methods of interaction, such as, for example, a dialogue in Russian or English. Those. If you…
- That is, in principle, it is possible, we understand you correctly, Petrov? - asks Morkovyova.
Petrov realizes that he has gone too far with imagery.
“Let's just say,” he says. - Authentication, as such, can be implemented by completely different protocols. But in order to get “MicrosoftAD” authentication, you should use only “MicrosoftAD” protocols, and it is not necessary to use all available protocols, i.e.
- Petrov, you do not confuse us, please. You have just said that this is possible, and now you say that it is impossible !? Be finally consistent in your actions.
Petrov silently curses his talkativeness.
- No, you misunderstood me. I just wanted to say that in some extremely rare situations, the authentication protocol will not matter, but even then - authentication will still not be performed by the MicrosoftAD protocols. You see, it will not be "MicrosoftAD" authentication! She will be different. And you need "MicrosoftAD", i.e. Kerberos, NTLM or some outdated ...
- Petrov, what are you really. You have to be modest. Do not stick out your competencies! - Offensive Nedozaitsev.
Excuse me, says Petrov, but you meant competence and I ...
- It doesn’t matter - cuts Nedozaitsev - you as a professional should know that this is not acceptable.
There is a brief silence, in which the quiet, intense buzzing of synapses is clearly heard.
“What if,” conceived by the idea, Nedozaitsev says, “implement its“ IBM Domino ”protocol? I heard such a program we have.
“It still won't work,” Petrov shakes his head. - If you implement “IBM Domino” - the protocols inherent in the “IBM Domino” product will be used.
Silence again. This time it is interrupted by Petrov himself.
- And I still do not understand ... What did you mean when you talk about authentication by authorization protocol?
Morkoveva looks at him condescendingly, like a kind teacher at a lagging student.
- Well, how can I explain to you? .. Petrov, don't you know what “Authorization” is?
“I know, however ...”
- And what is “MicrosoftAD authentication”, I hope you also do not need to explain?
“No, don't, but ...”
- Here you go. You implement us "MicrosoftAD" authentication authorization protocol.
Petrov pauses for a second, thinking about the situation, and begins to feel a powerful feeling of the coming cognitive dissonance.
- And how should the result look like, please, please describe? How do you imagine that!? Do you have any idea that authentication and authorization do not even have an analogous purpose, not to mention that authorization itself is not a protocol, but ...
- Petrov, we have not a lecture hall here, but a meeting. - interrupts Nedozaitsev.
- Well, oh, Petro-o-s! - joins Sidoryakhin. - Well, let's not ... We have a kindergarten? Who is an expert on MicrosoftAD authentication, Morkyov or you?
“I'm just trying to clarify for myself the details of the task ...”
There is an awkward pause. Morkovyeva looks at Petrov with bewilderment.
- Yes, where it’s already more detailed, says Morkovyeva, you need to realize the task so that the result, firstly, is correct, and secondly, it’s completely satisfactory.
- In terms of? - “stumbles” in mid-sentence Petrov. - How is this “right” and what does “completely satisfied” mean?
- How do you usually solve the problem? So, so and so. - draws Morkovyova dashes in some papers, and then throws a pen and claps his hand twice on them.
- Of course, and I do it there, there and still there - Petrov is not being held.
- Petro-ov! Do not ernichayte - Sidoryahin stops him. - you wanted clarification?
- Well, what is there to you that is incomprehensible? .. - Nedozaytsev again gets into the conversation. - Here Morkovyeva understands everything. And Lenochka nods understandingly, although she hasn’t been working with us yet. Everything is clear except for you.
- Let us suppose. Then explain to me, please, - Petrov begins demonstratively politely, - what in your understanding means “relevant“ MicrosoftAD ”authentication”? How well do you understand what is being said?
- Well, Petrov. It is obvious. Relevant will be the one that is relevant. You know what “relevant” is?
“Yes, but ...”
- And what is “authentication” clear to you too?
“Of course, but ...”
- So what do you explain something? Petrov, well, let's not stoop to unproductive disputes. The task is set, the task is clear and clear. Understandable to all those present. If you have specific questions, ask.
- Excuse me, - Petrov is not keeping up. And where is the problem itself? Where is the information corresponding to the concept of the problem? The task is given, the condition and the question with the well-known method of solution. Please submit them for review!
- Petrov! Are you starting again ?! - Nedozaitsev starts to get angry.
“You're a professional,” adds Sidoryakhin. “What unethical hints.” Behave correctly.
- Yes. - adds Morkovyova, - Well, what for hints about understanding? - We are girls, and you behave like this ... It should be a shame. Shame on you
“Okay,” Petrov surrenders. - God is with him, with her, with relevance. But you have something else with a focus? ..
- Yes, - readily confirms Morkovyeva. - quite right, 7 authentications and all are strictly directed.
- Directed to where? - clarifies Petrov.
Morkovyeva begins to look through his papers.
“Uh-uh,” she finally says. - Well, how would ... be sent to where they should be sent ... it's obvious - Looks at the paper - well, that's it ... there and there. Each other. Well, or whatever ... And so everything is clear. - Petrov, I thought you were an expert in the areas of relevant authentications. - Finally she is.
Petrov makes inarticulate sounds, trying to control himself.
“Yes, of course he knows,” Sidoryakhin flaps his arms. - Professionals are we here, or not professionals? ..
- Colleagues, - Petrov clears his throat, finally taking himself in hand for another attempt - the data exchange during authentication, in general, passes only between 2 points, i.e. authentication is directed from subject to object and vice versa. All seven authentication streams cannot be simultaneously directed against each other. This is the question of determining the authenticity of the subject, i.e. the authenticity of who is trying to access the object. In other words, it checks whether the user is who he claims to be or not! These are the basics of security.
Morkovyeva shakes his head, driving away the looming ghost of a long-forgotten engineering education.
Nedozaitsev slaps his hand on the table:
- Petrov, let's not have this: "Basics of Security, Basics of Security." Let's be mutually polite. We will not make hints and roll up to insults. Let's maintain a constructive dialogue. Here are not idiots gathered.
“I think so too,” says Sidoryakhin. - Besides, frankly, you do not really help with your questions. Petrov, it seems that you are complicating everything specifically so that you do nothing. Do you agree? - Appeals to Carrot and Lena.
Morkovyeva and Lenochka approvingly nod.
Petrov (irritably) pulls a piece of paper towards him.
“Good,” he says. - Come on, I'll draw you. Here are the authentication flows between the subject “S1” and the object “O”. So?
Morkovyeva nods affirmatively.
“We are drawing streams for the second subject ...” says Petrov. - “S2” and “O” - they similarly exchange data. Are the flows directed bilaterally?
“Well,” says Morkovyev in an attempt to make sense.
- Yes, they are directed. - helps Petrov.
- Well, you see! - happily exclaims Morkovyeva.
- Wait, that's not all. Now let's pay attention to the scheme as a whole, in the part of the subject “S2”, “S1” and the object “O”. Are the authentication flows from each subject in relation to the object mutually directed against each other?
There is silence, followed by a thoughtful silence in an attempt to stop the Brownian movement of thoughts.
Without waiting for an answer, Petrov answers himself:
- Yes, for the first authentication they are directed at each other. In the second, also directed at each other. But the 1st and 2nd authentication between each other are independent, isolated.
There is silence. Then Morkovyeva gets up from her seat and, rounding the table, comes in from the rear of Petrov, peering over his shoulder.
- Well ... - she says hesitantly, - Probably, yes.
“That's the point,” says Petrov, trying to consolidate the success achieved. - While “S1” to “O” is authenticated, their streams are directed at each other, since data exchange is two-way. As soon as another subject “S2” tries to perform authentication for connecting to the system, i.e. to the object "O", then the initiated information flow ...
- Can I have a pen? - asks Morkovyov, interrupting Petrov's winning speech.
Petrov gives the pen. Morkovyeva cautiously conducts a few hesitant movements.
- And if so?..
Petrov sighs.
- This is called ... No, this is not all directed at each other. It is not mutually directed, it is a “many to one” model or a star, i.e subjects initiate network connections in the direction of a single access object. As it should be. In addition, there are three, not seven, but it does not matter.
Morkovyeva purses her lips.
- Why are they signed by “IBM Domino”? - suddenly asks Nedozaitsev.
“Oh, by the way,” supports Sidoryakhin. - I wanted to ask myself.
Petrov blinks several times, looking at the drawing.
“Well, I'm using the example of IBM Domino,” he finally says. “I’m just to demonstrate ... with an example different from MicrosoftAD .... He throws up his hands Petrov.
- Well, maybe this is the point? - impatiently interrupts Nedozaytsev in the tone of a man who has just figured out a complex concept and hurries to share it with others, until the thought is lost. - You have authentication written "IBM Domino". You write "MicrosoftAD", and let's see what happens. This is obvious! How did you not guess before that, Petrov?
“It will be the same, but only with MicrosoftAD,” says Petrov confidently.
- Well, somehow the same thing? - says Nedozaitsev. - How can you be sure if you have not even tried? Write "MicrosoftAD", and we will see and decide. Well, what do you braw!
- Well, honestly, colleagues, he wants us to persuade him! - addresses to those present Nedozaitsev.
“Colleagues, I have not tried this with each of our systems, the infrastructure used,” admits Petrov. - but I can confidently state that the result will be identical, since the principle of authenticity ...
- And what have you not prepared? - Sidoryahin reproachfully speaks, interrupting Petrov. - They knew that there would be a meeting ... That serious people will come, and you are so disrespectful of their time ... It is not good, Petrov, it is not good ...
“There you are,” confirms Morkovyev, “but he took a manner that disrespectfully treated his colleagues.”
“I can definitely tell you,” says Petrov in despair, “that with MicrosoftAD the protocols will be exactly the same!”
“You yourself told us last time,” Sidoryakhin says, “that you need to implement MicrosoftAD authentication using MicrosoftAD protocols.” Here, I even wrote myself down - demonstrating the records to my colleagues, Sidoryahin shakes his head reproachfully - And on the leaflet themselves, they are indicated as “IBM Domino”. Is this “MicrosoftAD” authentication your way? Oh, Petrov? Well, it is impossible so - Sidoryahin ashamed of him.
“By the way, yes,” remarks Nedozaitsev. - I also asked you about the “IBM Domino” protocol. What did you answer me?
Petrova suddenly saves Lenochka, with interest studying his scheme from his place.
“I think I understand,” she says. “You're not talking about the protocol now, are you?” Do you have this one, what do you call it? Are there atectifi directions?
“Authentication, yes,” Petrov responded gratefully. “It’s not related to the protocols used by IBM Domino.” Moreover…
“Everything, you have confused me completely,” says Nedozaitsev, looking from one participant of the meeting to another. - So we have problems with what? With the protocol or direction?
Morkovyeva makes bewildered sounds and shakes her head. She is also confused.
“With nothing, but with whom,” Petrov says quietly to himself, already realizing the whole surrealism of what is happening.
- Petrov! - raises the voice of Nedozaitsev - still hearing him.
There comes a short general silence.
“I can't understand anything,” Nedozaytsev breaks the silence, looking at his fingers locked in the lock. - There is a task. All you need is 7 relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentications. I understand that there would be dozens of them! .. But then there are only seven. The task is simple. The task is clear and understandable. Our customers want 7 relevant "MicrosoftAD" authentications. Right?
Morkovyeva nods.
“And Sidoryakhin doesn’t see the problem either,” says Nedozaitsev. - I'm right, Sidoryakhin? .. Well, here. So what's stopping us from doing the elementary task?
“Logic,” Petrov says with a sigh.
- Well, you just do not pay attention to her, that's all! - with a confident voice says Morkoveva - You're an adult, Petrov, do you have any opinion? Why do you go on about a colleague?
Petrov is silent, collecting thoughts. One after another, colorful metaphors are born in his brain that would allow to convey surrealism to those around him, but as luck would have it, all of them, putting on words, begin invariably with the word “Bl * t!”, Completely inappropriate in the framework of a business conversation.
Tired of waiting for an answer, Nedozaitsev says:
- Petrov, you answer simply - can you do it or just don’t want it? We understand that you are a narrow specialist and do not see the big picture. Not able to appreciate the complexity of organizational problems. I can assure you that we have already comprehensively analyzed everything! You just have to do it. But is it easy to implement some 7 relevant authentications? You are the best in this, and for two hours we have been discussing some nonsense and can’t come to a decision.
— , — — , .
— , — . — : «! !» ! , . ! - .
:
— , , , .
.
— . — , . — , …
— . — .
— , .. , — — , . , .. , . ?
— ? — . — , .
— LDAP, — . — , ?
— , — .
— «»?
, , , :
- What?
— , «». . . . , , . , . , … . …
— , — .
— ?
— , «» «» GUI . , . . . . .
— , — . — , . . . . , …
— , — .
— , ?.. — .
— , , - — . — , «».
— , — , . — «Ok» GUI «F1» , .
— , — . — «» , , ? . .
.
— , — .
.
— ? What are we doing?
— «MicrosoftAD» , — . — «MicrosoftAD» , LDAP, . Yes? ?
— , — , .
.
— … , , ?.. ?.. ?..
— , — . — «SharePoint»! ?
— , . — , . — , …
— , — — , , DevOps. . … — . — , , , DevOps. — .
— ? ? What are you talking about?- Petrov asks puzzled.
Petrov's remark is ignored, discussing the newly emerging proposal among themselves.
“Oh, by the way,” says Morkovyeva. - Let's "SharePoint" also immediately discuss, so as not to meet twice.
“Petrov,” Nedozaytsev turns to Petrov. - We can it?
- What does SharePoint have to do with me? - Petrov asks in surprise.
- How?! - Helen exclaims in surprise. - But he's Microsoft!
“You see, even Lena knows this,” confirms Morkovyeva.
Petrov is stupidly silent, trembling with his fingertips.
“Petrov,” asks Nedozaitsev. - So you can or can not? A simple question. Should we persuade you again?
— , — , — , , …
— , — . — , , . , . . , , – .
— , . — . — …
, .
— ? — .
— , — . — , … , ?.. — — . … !
- Petrov, on arrival you report on the work. And do not tighten. - says Morkovyeva, putting patterns in front of him. - Write a plan yourself? Is it not difficult for you? That's agreed. Do not forget to send it to me tonight. Closing documents on commissioning, as usual, upon arrival, issue in the accounting department. Everything. . . — .
— , — , — , ? , ? ? ?
, . , . .
, , , , . .
— , . — — .
- Can I also ask you? - blushing, says Helen. - You, when you will program “SharePoint” ... Can you program it in the form of “WebSphere”?
Petrov sighs.
“I can do anything,” he says. - I can absolutely everything. I'm a professional.
Hopefully, this example will help someone in real life to confront the dibbers.
Part of the context has been specifically preserved to leave the recognition of the original source.
Based on the story “Meeting” by Alexei Berezin. I thank him for his work, which led him to spend more than a dozen hours creating an alternative version with technical content. That was hard.
Data source
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/345922/
All Articles