Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Bug 1445188

Summary:	Misleading error message - Incoming BER Element was 3 bytes
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Reporter:	Amita Sharma <amsharma>
Component:	389-ds-base	Assignee:	mreynolds
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Viktor Ashirov <vashirov>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:	Marc Muehlfeld <mmuehlfe>
Priority:	low
Version:	7.4	CC:	amsharma, cobrown, nkinder, rmeggins
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	389-ds-base-1.3.7.5-10.el7	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:	Clear error message when sending TLS data to a non-LDAPS port Previously, Directory Server decoded TLS protocol handshakes sent to a port that was configured to use plain text as an LDAPMessage data type. However, decoding failed and the server reported the misleading "BER was 3 bytes, but actually was <greater>" error. With this update, Directory Server detects if TLS data is sent to a port configured for plain text and returns the following error message to the client: Incoming BER Element may be misformed. This may indicate an attempt to use TLS on a plaintext port, IE ldaps://localhost:389. Check your client LDAP_URI settings. As a result, the new error message indicates that an incorrect client configuration causes the problem.	Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-04-10 14:16:50 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Amita Sharma 2017-04-25 08:32:07 UTC

Description of problem:
Because of a wrong port number used in commandline for ladpmodify, I am getting in error logs - 
[25/Apr/2017:03:03:32.806827033 -0400] - ERR - log_ber_too_big_error - conn=12 fd=64 Incoming BER Element was 3 bytes, max allowable is 2097152 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize attribute in cn=config to increase. 

which is misleading

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
389-ds-base-1.3.6.1-9.el7.x86_64

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Configure MMR with SSL

2. execute - /usr/lib64/mozldap/ldapmodify -Z -P "/etc/dirsrv/slapd-M1/cert8.db" -W secret12 -p 30100 -h localhost -D "cn=directory manager" -w Secret123 << EOF
dn: uid=new_user4,dc=example,dc=com
changetype: add
objectClass: top
objectClass: person
objectClass: organizationalPerson
objectClass: inetorgperson
uid: new_user4
sn: new_user4
cn: new_user4
EOF

where 30100 is non-ssl port (wrong port number)

3. you will get below on command line -
ldap_simple_bind: Can't contact LDAP server
	SSL error -5938 (Encountered end of file.)

4. And in error messages, it will show -
[25/Apr/2017:03:13:17.830291071 -0400] - ERR - log_ber_too_big_error - conn=16 fd=64 Incoming BER Element was 3 bytes, max allowable is 2097152 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize attribute in cn=config to increase.
[25/Apr/2017:03:22:08.700482270 -0400] - ERR - log_ber_too_big_error - conn=22 fd=64 Incoming BER Element was 3 bytes, max allowable is 2097152 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize attribute in cn=config to increase.


Actual results:
Error message for a wrong port-

[25/Apr/2017:03:13:17.830291071 -0400] - ERR - log_ber_too_big_error - conn=16 fd=64 Incoming BER Element was 3 bytes, max allowable is 2097152 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize attribute in cn=config to increase.
[25/Apr/2017:03:22:08.700482270 -0400] - ERR - log_ber_too_big_error - conn=22 fd=64 Incoming BER Element was 3 bytes, max allowable is 2097152 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize attribute in cn=config to increase.


Expected results:
Errors message should be helpful in pointing out the mistake.


Additional info:

Comment 2 Amita Sharma 2017-04-25 09:08:18 UTC

Here the error message says "ERR - log_ber_too_big_error - conn=16 fd=64 Incoming BER Element was 3 bytes, max allowable is 2097152 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize attribute in cn=config to increase."

Even if you try to change the nsslapd-maxbersize attribute in cn=config to increase, it does not help to resolve the issue and leads to more confusion.

Comment 3 wibrown@redhat.com 2017-09-11 23:49:32 UTC

I've seen this before. It's when you use TLS on a ldap:// port. This could be easy to detect and fix but I seem to remember last I looked at it, it was more annoying than I thought.

Comment 4 wibrown@redhat.com 2017-09-11 23:53:54 UTC

Upstream ticket:
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49377

Comment 9 Amita Sharma 2017-11-21 10:47:43 UTC

After discussion on IRC it is clear that we can still get both of these error messages in some cases. Hence marking bug as verified. Thanks @wibrown

Comment 10 wibrown@redhat.com 2017-12-05 09:43:29 UTC

You're welcome Amita!

Comment 17 errata-xmlrpc 2018-04-10 14:16:50 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:0811