[cifs-protocol] RE: MS-SAMR missing SID name use type ?
ronniesahlberg at gmail.com
Mon Nov 10 22:49:03 GMT 2008
I see where the confusion has arised from now.
LSA and SAMR both contain a definition for SID_NAME_TYPE but they are
The definitions of SID_NAME_TYPE in LSA and SAMR are identical up to
item 8 where the SAMR version ends.
LSA contains two extra name types COMPUTER==9 and LABEL==10
Any particular reason why SAMR and LSA uses similar but different
definitions of this structure?
This leads to confusion.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:36 PM, ronnie sahlberg
<ronniesahlberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Obaid
> Some new information relevant to this issue has just been received by me.
> Please disregard my previous post to let me digest this new
> inconsistency in the documentation before i follow up.
> Please leave the case open until I have investigated.
> ronnie sahlberg
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:55 AM, ronnie sahlberg
> <ronniesahlberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Obaid,
>> Since I was the originator for this request,
>> If you have looked but not found any indication that there are any
>> additional sid types than those listed
>> I assume that SidTypeComputer = 9 (or something similar) must be a
>> mistake in the way that these things were discovered previously in
>> samba or wireshark.
>> You can close this issue as far as I am concerned.
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Obaid Farooqi <obaidf at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew:
>>> I tried to dig this up but the scope of your question is currently just too broad. It would help greatly if you can give a little more information about the scenario in which you saw this enum. Is there any additional information that you or another member of Samba can recall that will help reduce the breadth of the scope? Even a timeframe that the scenario was experienced may prove to be useful.
>>> Obaid Farooqi
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet at samba.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:48 PM
>>> To: Obaid Farooqi
>>> Cc: 'ronnie sahlberg'; 'pfif at tridgell.net'; 'cifs-protocol at samba.org'
>>> Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] RE: MS-SAMR missing SID name use type ?
>>> On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 17:22 -0700, Obaid Farooqi wrote:
>>>> Good Afternoon Ronnie:
>>>> I am still waiting for your response. We need this info to move forward on this case.
>>>> I believe there might be one additional value for this enum to
>>>> describe a sid for a machine/computer :
>>>> SidTypeComputer = 9 (or something similar)
>>>> This assumption is based on Wireshark and Samba4 code.
>>> Because of the long history of Samba - without suitable documentation for the most part, sometimes myths and legends build up. That said, I'm unable to produce this value on the wire for LSA lookup names.
>>> What we are asking is for is some research and clarification (if possible). We can't ask you how we got this in the first place, but we were hoping you might be able to do some digging, to check the IDL and see if this value ever occours in this enum in windows (ie, is this a cut-down enum), or if there is another similar (but not identical) enum that we might have got confused with.
>>> Andrew Bartlett
>>> Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
>>> Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
More information about the cifs-protocol