[cifs-protocol] [EXTERNAL] Update of MS-PAC spec regarding November 2021 security updates - TrackingID#2111240040005432
Andrew Bartlett
abartlet at samba.org
Mon Nov 29 18:58:35 UTC 2021
The proposed extensibility of this bit array was as discussed with the
product team during the coordinated development of the fixes.
However spec-by-phone-call is lossy (I'm actually pretty surprised we
ended up so close!) but we are trying to pin things down firmly in the
documents.
Andrew Bartlett
On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 18:49 +0000, Jeff McCashland (HE/HIM/THEY/THEM)
via cifs-protocol wrote:
> Hi Metze,
>
> How were you able to determine that the array size is
> '((int)(flags_length/32))+1'? Do you have a trace or document
> illustrating this?
>
> Also, it is expected that changes in the current Errata doc are not
> included in the published document, but normally the changes would be
> spelled out in the errata doc.
>
> Where did you find the Diff file with the changes? When I click the
> link, I get a PDF download, but I can't tell where it's coming from.
>
> Best regards,
> Jeff McCashland | Senior Escalation Engineer | Microsoft Protocol
> Open Specifications Team
> Phone: +1 (425) 703-8300 x38300 | Hours: 9am-5pm | Time zone: (UTC-
> 08:00) Pacific Time (US and Canada)
> Local country phone number found here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/globalenglish | Extension 1138300
> We value your feedback. My manager is Natesha Morrison (namorri), +1
> (704) 430-4292
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff McCashland
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 9:18 AM
> To: metze <metze at samba.org>; Alexander Bokovoy <ab at samba.org>
> Cc: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [cifs-protocol] Update of MS-PAC spec
> regarding November 2021 security updates -
> TrackingID#2111240040005432
>
> [Kristian to BCC]
>
> Hi Alexander and Metze,
>
> I will look into this and get back to you.
>
> Best regards,
> Jeff McCashland | Senior Escalation Engineer | Microsoft Protocol
> Open Specifications Team
> Phone: +1 (425) 703-8300 x38300 | Hours: 9am-5pm | Time zone: (UTC-
> 08:00) Pacific Time (US and Canada) Local country phone number found
> here: http://support.microsoft.com/globalenglish | Extension 1138300
> We value your feedback. My manager is Natesha Morrison (namorri), +1
> (704) 430-4292
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kristian Smith <Kristian.Smith at microsoft.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 8:40 AM
> To: metze <metze at samba.org>; Alexander Bokovoy <ab at samba.org>
> Cc: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org
> Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] [cifs-protocol] Update of MS-PAC spec
> regarding November 2021 security updates -
> TrackingID#2111240040005432
>
> [DocHelp to Bcc]
>
> Hi Alexander and Metze,
>
> Thank you for your request. The case number 2111240040005432 has been
> created for this inquiry. One of our team members will follow-up with
> you soon.
>
> Regards,
> Kristian
>
> Kristian Smith
> Support Escalation Engineer
> Windows Open Spec Protocols
> Office: (425) 421-4442
> krsmith at microsoftsupport.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: metze <metze at samba.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 2:13 AM
> To: Alexander Bokovoy <ab at samba.org>; Interoperability Documentation
> Help <dochelp at microsoft.com>
> Cc: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cifs-protocol] Update of MS-PAC spec
> regarding November 2021 security updates
>
>
> Am 24.11.21 um 10:33 schrieb Alexander Bokovoy via cifs-protocol:
> > Hello dochelp,
> >
> > I can see inconsistency in what is published on
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs
> > .microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fopenspecs%2Fwindows_protocols%2Fms-
> > pac%2F&
> > ;data=04%7C01%7CKristian.Smith%40microsoft.com%7C976b8182b4b84582f4
> > bd0
> > 8d9af334186%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6377334569
> > 597
> > 45681%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiL
> > CJB
> > TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=7gzSojo9ov6Uwx80K%2FwOQ
> > GhB
> > drb8oxqR%2F7yid5vn8tQ%3D&reserved=0
> > with regards to the changes introduced as a part of the Microsoft
> > Windows security update of November 2021. Could this inconsistency
> > be
> > clarified by publishing the new revision of the MS-PAC document?
> >
> > Errata document[1] talks about changes dated 2021/11/11 post V22.0
> > but
> > the rest of the linked documents are only V22.0.
> >
> > In particular, the errata document[1] is saying:
> >
> > -----
> > The following sections were changed or added. Please see the diff
> > document for the details.
> >
> > In section 2.10 UPN_DNS_INFO, added four new fields and a flag to
> > the
> > UPN_DNS_INFO structure.
> >
> > In section 2.14 PAC_ATTRIBUTES_INFO, added section.
> >
> > In section 2.15 PAC_REQUESTOR, added section.
> > -----
> >
> > The document published, however, does not have these changes. The
> > last
> > section in chapter 2 is '14', there is no section 2.15.
>
> I'm seeing it here:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwinprotocoldoc.blob.core.windows.net%2Fproductionwindowsarchives%2FMS-PAC%2F%255bMS-PAC%255d-20211109-diff.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cjeffm%40microsoft.com%7Cd3b94f30d63a4201ca5708d9af6911a4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637733688085851057%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=afpiUM0iw8uPezHr32JH3UVlG3HQcUD%2BnGteWfO%2FyEY%3D&reserved=0
>
> But for me the PAC_ATTRIBUTES_INFO documentation is a bit unclear:
>
> We have this in Samba:
> typedef [bitmap32bit] bitmap {
> PAC_ATTRIBUTE_FLAG_PAC_WAS_REQUESTED = 0x00000001,
> PAC_ATTRIBUTE_FLAG_PAC_WAS_GIVEN_IMPLICITLY =
> 0x00000002
> } PAC_ATTRIBUTE_INFO_FLAGS;
>
> typedef struct {
> uint32 flags_length; /* length in bits */
> PAC_ATTRIBUTE_INFO_FLAGS flags;
> } PAC_ATTRIBUTES_INFO;
>
> And the documentation has:
>
> FlagsLength (4 bytes): An unsigned 32-bit integer in little-endian
> format that describes the length,
> in bits, of the Flags field.
>
> Flags (variable): an array of 32-bit unsigned integers in little-
> endian format that contains flag bits
> describing the PAC.
>
> It's not really clear that the array size is
> '((int)(flags_length/32))+1', for now it's seems to be just a single
> uint32 element with two defined flags. Unless bit 33 will be defined
> someday, it would be easier to have it as
>
> typedef struct {
> uint32 number_of_valid_flags;
> uint32 flags;
> } PAC_ATTRIBUTES_INFO;
>
> which is basically what we currently have in Samba, but in theory it
> would have to be
>
> typedef struct {
> uint32 number_of_valid_flags;
> uint32 flags[(number_of_valid_flags/32)+1];
> } PAC_ATTRIBUTES_INFO;
>
> metze
>
> _______________________________________________
> cifs-protocol mailing list
> cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
--
Andrew Bartlett (he/him) https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org
Samba Team Lead, Catalyst IT https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT - Expert Open Source
Solutions
More information about the cifs-protocol
mailing list