[cifs-protocol] 112050346749387 handle based permission checks in SMB1?
srenaden at microsoft.com
Thu Aug 9 20:54:44 MDT 2012
Based on test results and some verification, we have found that some command groups (e.g. session management) in general do not enforce change in the latest security token in the session while others ( e.g. Transaction sub-protocol commands) do enforce latest security token resulting from the re-authentication operation performed. Below is a representative list of commands from the two categories described. Please note that because of the effort involved in testing/cross checking with spec, this is not a complete list of every SMB command. If you have any follow up questions please let us know. For instance if a specific list of commands you are interested in are not listed here and you want to know specifically how they work, do not hesitate to reply to this e-mail with that list. Also for obsolete commands, would you still be interested in how security is applied for those ?
Category A: Commands that use latest security token associated with session resulting from re-authentication
Category B: Commands that don't enforce latest security token resulting from re-authentication
In addition to this, FSA document described the STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED error seen from your test results
18.104.22.168 Server Requests a Query of Security Information
§ The operation MUST be failed with STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED under either of the following conditions:
§ SecurityInformation contains any of OWNER_SECURITY_INFORMATION, GROUP_SECURITY_INFORMATION, LABEL_SECURITY_INFORMATION, or DACL_SECURITY_INFORMATION, and Open.GrantedAccess does not contain READ_CONTROL.
Also in SMB1, if CAP_EXTENDED_SECURITY is NOT set and we perform a re-authentication, UID/session will change. This change itself may cause an operation to fail simply because an FID would be invalid for the new session.
Microsoft Windows Open Specifications
From: Volker Lendecke [mailto:Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:22 AM
To: Sreekanth Nadendla
Cc: MSSolve Case Email; cifs-protocol at cifs.org; pfif at tridgell.net
Subject: Re: 112050346749387 handle based permission checks in SMB1?
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:29:12PM +0000, Sreekanth Nadendla wrote:
> Hello Volker,
> Our product group is investigating this issue closely. I will provide
> you an update as soon as we conclude our review. Thank you for being
Do you have any updates on this matter?
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9 AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de
More information about the cifs-protocol