[cifs-protocol] RE: Mapping of MS-LSAD onto LDAP and DRS
rguthrie at microsoft.com
Mon Aug 11 15:43:38 GMT 2008
Thank you for the catch. I have resent this to you on the correct thread for follow up. The number 600169 should be in the subject.
Open Protocols Support Team
Support Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM 7100 N Hwy 161, Irving, TX - 75039 "Las Colinas - LC2"
Tel: +1 469 775 7794
E-mail: rguthrie at microsoft.com
We're hiring http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/details.aspx?JobID=A976CE32-B0B9-41E3-AF57-05A82B88383E&start=1&interval=10&SortCol=DatePosted
From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet at samba.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:48 PM
To: Richard Guthrie
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Mapping of MS-LSAD onto LDAP and DRS replications
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 07:40 -0700, Richard Guthrie wrote:
> The trace you sent previously lines up with expected behavior the
> documentation defines (This was also verified with a review of the
> code also). You can see starting with packet 530 that the client
> tells the server that it does support signing but the server responds
> in packet 534 that it does not. From there in frames 535-538 show the
> client and server not using header signing for the remainder of the
> conversation which is in line with the documentation. We do see the
> client and server encrypting the body of the request as per the
> authentication level being set to Privacy.
> Can you send a capture that exhibits the behavior you describe with
> NTLMv2 as well as clarify your comments about behavior you have seen
> in the past? Basically I need as much information as you can provide
> on the behavior you have experienced to help understand the problem.
> This would help to isolate the behavior you are seeing and complete
> additional analysis as required.
We seem to have crossed threads here (see subject...).
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
More information about the cifs-protocol