<?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 Re: User-ID LDAP syntax in rule in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/user-id-ldap-syntax-in-rule/m-p/288176#M76808</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Howdy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have not seen LDAP syntax, used in Policies, so I do not believe that functionality is readily configurable and available on the FWs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think the solution support domain\group or domain\user, so if this is what the vendor wants to support as their format, I see no problems.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Been instructor and PS for 7 years, and the lanman format is good for me.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:23:59 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>S.Cantwell</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-09-12T22:23:59Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>User-ID LDAP syntax in rule</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/user-id-ldap-syntax-in-rule/m-p/288131#M76799</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In the group mapping UserID template, we use LDAP syntax (CN=...., OU=...), but in rules, I have always seen Source User expressed&amp;nbsp; in lanman syntax, &lt;EM&gt;Domain\User &lt;/EM&gt;or ...&lt;EM&gt;\Group&lt;/EM&gt;.&amp;nbsp; Is it possible to use the LDAP syntax in the rule as well, and is there and advantage either way?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:15:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/user-id-ldap-syntax-in-rule/m-p/288131#M76799</guid>
      <dc:creator>BoDollis</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-12T17:15:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: User-ID LDAP syntax in rule</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/user-id-ldap-syntax-in-rule/m-p/288176#M76808</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Howdy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have not seen LDAP syntax, used in Policies, so I do not believe that functionality is readily configurable and available on the FWs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think the solution support domain\group or domain\user, so if this is what the vendor wants to support as their format, I see no problems.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Been instructor and PS for 7 years, and the lanman format is good for me.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:23:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/user-id-ldap-syntax-in-rule/m-p/288176#M76808</guid>
      <dc:creator>S.Cantwell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-12T22:23:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: User-ID LDAP syntax in rule</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/user-id-ldap-syntax-in-rule/m-p/288186#M76810</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Either one works for me, although it seems like if the query can be done via LDAP syntax it would be more efficient and precise.&amp;nbsp; I did notice that the rule will accept LDAP syntax, but have not tested it beyond a commit validation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;More of an academic q: really.&amp;nbsp; Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2019 23:14:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/user-id-ldap-syntax-in-rule/m-p/288186#M76810</guid>
      <dc:creator>BoDollis</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-12T23:14:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

