[cifs-protocol] [REG113100710843173]: Question about LDAP delete operation on Administrator and other built-in accounts

[Bryan Burgin]

[-dochelp; +casemail]

Hi Nadezhda,

Thank you for your question.  We created SR 113100710843173 to track this issue.  An engineer from the Protocols will contact you soon.

Bryan

From: nivanova.samba at gmail.com [mailto:nivanova.samba at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Nadezhda Ivanova
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 5:55 AM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help
Cc: cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: Question about LDAP delete operation on Administrator and other built-in accounts

Hi,
At the I/O Lab we asked about the restrictions that apply on performing a delete operation on built-in accounts. To explain the correct behavior, Edgar kindly supplied the following references:
"
3.1.1.5.5.1.1 Tombstone Requirements
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223481.aspx

A protected object may not be deleted and transformed into a tombstone (see Protected Objects (section <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223483.aspx> 3.1.1.5.5.3<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223483.aspx>)<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223483.aspx>).

3.1.1.5.5.3 Protected Objects
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223483.aspx

3.1.1.6.1.2 Protected Objects
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd240058.aspx
...

o   well-known security principals:
*  of class user<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221822.aspx> with RID = DOMAIN_USER_RID_ADMIN

"
However, some testing revealed that the last reference which we hoped would explain why the Administrator should not be deleted, appears to not be relevant to the case. Delete operation on any built-in account or predefined domain rid returns LDAP error 80, and the group membership does not really affect the deletion of users or groups.
So after some digging, I found this:


http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc245803.aspx
Namely: If the RID of U's objectSid attribute value is less than 1000, an error MUST be returned.
Could you please confirm that this is indeed the only restriction relevant to the case?
Best Regards,
Nadezhda Ivanova
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/cifs-protocol/attachments/20131007/e4b75d5f/attachment.html>