[cifs-protocol] Status: SRX091112600382 [MS-GPOL] - OI and CI flags on every ACL entries
billwe at microsoft.com
Mon Feb 1 06:20:06 MST 2010
Good morning again. Sebastian will be back in the office today; I have just reassigned this case back to him.
Sebastian - Matthieu has replied to my email from last Thursday with ACL/SDDL considerations that look to be a new case. I was unfortunately taken ill last Friday, and was not able to respond.
MCSE, MCTS / Senior Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM
8055 Microsoft Way
Charlotte, NC 28273
Email: billwe at microsoft.com
Tel: +1(980) 776-8200
Cell: +1(704) 661-5438
Fax: +1(704) 665-9606
From: Matthieu Patou [mailto:mat+Informatique.Samba at matws.net]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 6:05 PM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: Sebastian Canevari; cifs-protocol at samba.org; pfif at tridgell.net
Subject: Re: Status: SRX091112600382 [MS-GPOL] - OI and CI flags on every ACL entries
On 28/01/2010 19:54, Bill Wesse wrote:
> Good day Matthieu. Please note that my colleague Sebastian is out of the office for the next few days. In the interim, I will be your contact. Thanks in advance for your patience!
> I have reviewed the case, and want to make sure I address any open questions. My current read indicates we haven't answered the below question. Could you confirm this is the case, and advise me of any other open questions you have?
> And last but not least question, it seems that GPMC wants to have OI and CI flags on every ACL entries; is it due to the presence of the "SDDL_AUTO_INHERITED">control in the SDDL?
Well I'm not sure of this because I remember an email from Hongwei that
told me that they were set because it was coded like that ...
But in fact I would like to come back to you about NT ACLs (but maybe it
might be filled in another case let me know if you want to do so).
Lately I discovered that subinacl is able du dump NT ACLs in SDDL format.
I checked and it seems that the dump is ok (at least the owner is ok,
the different granted users/groups are ok also).
So for instance a w2k3 server acting as a DC I have :
It was obtained from:
But if dump the ACL of the object
So even if we remove the SACL and apply the transformation rules
proposed before there is a huge difference between the file DS ACL and
the associated file ACL (owner/group is different, BA is used in file
ACL when DA is used in DS ACL). So it is seems that the logic is not ok
(although it makes gpmc happy).
Can you explain this ? Can you take from your side dump of a fresh
w2k3r2 dc (or w2k8/w2k8r2) and look for the ACL on files/dir associated
with GPO and with the GPO objects as well ?
> Thanks in advance!
> Bill Wesse
> MCSE, MCTS / Senior Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM
> 8055 Microsoft Way
> Charlotte, NC 28273
> Email: billwe at microsoft.com
> Tel: +1(980) 776-8200
> Cell: +1(704) 661-5438
> Fax: +1(704) 665-9606
> From: Matthieu Patou [mailto:mat+Informatique.Samba at matws.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 3:56 PM
> To: Hongwei Sun
> Cc: Sebastian Canevari; cifs-protocol at samba.org; pfif at tridgell.net
> Subject: Re: FW: [cifs-protocol] Group Policy questions
> On 23/12/2009 00:47, Hongwei Sun wrote:
>> Your summary is a good recap of what we have done on this topic. I have one clarification for the point below.
>> * All ACE for allowed object are wipped out when
>> "translating" AD ACL to File ACL
>> When translating a ACL for DS object to a ACL for SYSVOL file object, the ACEs with types of ACCESS_ALLOWED_OBJECT_ACE_TYPE, ACCESS_DENIED_OBJECT_ACE_TYPE and SYSTEM_AUDIT_OBJECT_ACE_TYPE are not really deleted from the ACL. Instead, for such a ACE, access mask in AceHeader is assigned to zero.
> Yeah I meant that when "translating" an AD ACL to a file ACL we do not care about it, for all those ACCESS_ALLOWED_OBJECT_ACE_TYPE in the AD no corresponding ACE in created.
>> Sebastian will follow up with you on your question regarding documenting the logic for ACE OI and CI flags.
More information about the cifs-protocol