[cifs-protocol] [REG:118040517948537] MS-ADTS: msDS-ResultantPSO and DOMAIN_USER_RID_KRBTGT discrepancy

Tarun Chopra Tarun.Chopra at microsoft.com
Thu Apr 5 21:05:23 UTC 2018

Hello Tim

We have created a case; 118040517948537, to track your inquiry and an Escalation Engineer will contact you to assist further.

Best Regards,
Tarun Chopra | Sr. Escalation Engineer
Open Specifications Support Team
Work +1-425-705-5042
Email  tarun.chopra at microsoft.com
Monday-Friday 9:00a-6:00p Pacific Timezone

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Beale <timbeale at catalyst.net.nz> 
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:00 PM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help <dochelp at microsoft.com>; cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org
Subject: MS-ADTS: msDS-ResultantPSO and DOMAIN_USER_RID_KRBTGT discrepancy


I'm looking into the behaviour of msDS-ResultantPSO and found a discrepancy between the specification and the actual behaviour.

In MS-ADTS, section msDS-ResultantPSO [1], it says the

  If the RID in U!objectSid is equal to DOMAIN_USER_RID_KRBTGT, then there is no value in this attribute.

I tried adding a PSO object and applying it to the krbtgt user on a Windows 2012R2 VM. Based on the spec, I would expect no msDS-ResultantPSO to be returned for the krbtgt user. However, I do see one returned, e.g.

# record 1
objectSid: S-1-5-21-886655096-618523297-2770022155-502
msDS-ResultantPSO: CN=dummy-PSO,CN=Password Settings Container,CN=System,DC=WINDOWS2012R2,DC=WIN,DC=TIM,DC=WGTN,DC=CAT-IT,DC=CO,DC=NZ

You can see the RID in the objectSid is 502, which is DOMAIN_USER_RID_KRBTGT.

Could you please clarify which is incorrect - the specification or the Windows behaviour? Or have I misunderstood something?


[1] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmsdn.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Flibrary%2Fcc223866.aspx&data=02%7C01%7Cdochelp%40windows.microsoft.com%7Ce172420a92714a01130f08d59b383228%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636585588018722990&sdata=KdE0SNnF0Xy3GBjnp8UKzXt4GB9xQ2j0fFKuUZaD9JI%3D&reserved=0

More information about the cifs-protocol mailing list