<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Group Mapping Nesting LDAP Filters in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/group-mapping-nesting-ldap-filters/m-p/580403#M116252</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am trying to achieve the following:&lt;BR /&gt;I would like to limit the groups the firewalls need to cache.&lt;BR /&gt;Therefore I would like to filter only to search below certain OUs in AD. As I learned this is not possible via LDAP Searchfilter with wildcards or sth.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Therefore I set up multiple LDAP Server Profiles where the Base DN matches the entry-OUs where I would like to search below and created multiple User ID Group Mappings without any search filters&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I assumed this would allow the nested groups to be properly resolved to the users. Unfortunately this is not the case.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I think the problem might be the following:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Top-Level Group is a match for UID Group Mapping A&lt;BR /&gt;Below-Level Groups are match for UID Group Mapping B/C/D&lt;BR /&gt;During evaluation only the UID Group Mapping A is used further for evaluation and therefore doesn't find the users&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Might this assumption be correct?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If so: Is it problematic for a firewall not to have filters and just ingest all AD groups or will that resolve in too much traffic (in an &amp;lt; 8k User AD with several hundrets of groups)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks for any advice&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:10:28 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>ipohlschneider</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-03-14T14:10:28Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Group Mapping Nesting LDAP Filters</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/group-mapping-nesting-ldap-filters/m-p/580403#M116252</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am trying to achieve the following:&lt;BR /&gt;I would like to limit the groups the firewalls need to cache.&lt;BR /&gt;Therefore I would like to filter only to search below certain OUs in AD. As I learned this is not possible via LDAP Searchfilter with wildcards or sth.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Therefore I set up multiple LDAP Server Profiles where the Base DN matches the entry-OUs where I would like to search below and created multiple User ID Group Mappings without any search filters&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I assumed this would allow the nested groups to be properly resolved to the users. Unfortunately this is not the case.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I think the problem might be the following:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Top-Level Group is a match for UID Group Mapping A&lt;BR /&gt;Below-Level Groups are match for UID Group Mapping B/C/D&lt;BR /&gt;During evaluation only the UID Group Mapping A is used further for evaluation and therefore doesn't find the users&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Might this assumption be correct?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If so: Is it problematic for a firewall not to have filters and just ingest all AD groups or will that resolve in too much traffic (in an &amp;lt; 8k User AD with several hundrets of groups)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks for any advice&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:10:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/group-mapping-nesting-ldap-filters/m-p/580403#M116252</guid>
      <dc:creator>ipohlschneider</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-14T14:10:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Group Mapping Nesting LDAP Filters</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/group-mapping-nesting-ldap-filters/m-p/580423#M116257</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/198122"&gt;@ipohlschneider&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Not using filters or the built-in group-include-list functionality isn't a&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;problem&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;as long as your platform(s) can sync the number of groups that you're requesting. So a PA-440 can only have 1,000 active groups used in policy, but a PA-5220 can have 10,000. If you only have hundreds of groups you shouldn't run into any issues even on the smallest platforms.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Nested groups will sync perfectly fine, but you need to insure that you're also syncing the membership of the nested group as well. So if I have a 'All-Devices' group as an example that has the nested 'All-Laptops', 'All-Desktops', and 'All-BYOD' as a simple example you need to sync the membership of those three nested groups to get things to function properly.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:35:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/group-mapping-nesting-ldap-filters/m-p/580423#M116257</guid>
      <dc:creator>BPry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-14T17:35:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

