[cifs-protocol] [REG:116053014225794] UF_SMARTCARD_REQUIRED and supplementalCredentials

Obaid Farooqi obaidf at microsoft.com
Wed Jun 1 16:53:19 UTC 2016

Hi Metze:
I'll help you with this question and will be in touch as soon as I have an answer.

Obaid Farooqi
Escalation Engineer | Microsoft

Exceeding your expectations is my highest priority.  If you would like to provide feedback on your case you may contact my manager at nkang at Microsoft dot com

-----Original Message-----
From: "Edgar Olougouna" <edgaro at microsoft.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 2:50 PM
To: "Stefan Metzmacher" <metze at samba.org>
Cc: "MSSolve Case Email" <casemail at microsoft.com>; "cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org" <cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org>
Subject: [REG:116053014225794] UF_SMARTCARD_REQUIRED and supplementalCredentials

[case number in subject]
[cc casemail; bcc dochelp] 

Hi Metze, 

We have created the case number 116053014225794 for this inquiry. One of our engineers will follow-up with you soon. 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Stefan Metzmacher [mailto:metze at samba.org] 
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 3:48 AM 
To: Interoperability Documentation Help <dochelp at microsoft.com>;
cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org 
Subject: UF_SMARTCARD_REQUIRED and supplementalCredentials 

Hi DocHelp, 

while researching the UF_SMARTCARD_REQUIRED behavior, I found that the
supplementalCredentials attribute is not removed as specified in MS-SAMR userAccountControl.

Instead a USER_PROPERTIES structure is stored without any
UserProperties (variable) part. 

The strange thing is that the PropertyCount element is also skipped
instead of being 0. 

Can you specify the expected behavior? 

Is it always the case that PropertyCount is skipped if it would be 0? 


More information about the cifs-protocol mailing list