[jcifs] Spaces in Share names.

Rob Wygand rob at filefish.com
Fri Dec 21 17:01:18 EST 2001


That explains my confusion! I thought NT LM 1.0 was the latest, so I 
could not figure out how things were being differetiated.

I also have Mr. Leighton's book, though I must admit I have not yet had 
time to read it. Maybe I'll make some time this break.

Have a happy holiday season, Mike (and everyone else!)


Allen, Michael B (RSCH) wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:	Rob Wygand [SMTP:rob at filefish.com]
>>I tried one other thing... sniffing Win2K I was that it sent a bunch of 
>>possible version strings in the  post-session configuration request (I 
>>forget it's name, the one where you send "NT LM 1.0"). I modified the 
>>request to send everything that Win2K was. but that didn't help, alas.
> 	Those are "dialect" strings. "NT LM 1.0" is the latest as far as I know. The strange thing
> 	is that the protocol has changed significantly enough to warrant a new dialect string.
> 	Win98 also negotiates "NT LM 1.0" and it doesn't have all the NT Smbs and
> 	transactions. Instead they have a separate flag called NTSMBS or something. Anyway,
> 	the dialect strings are definitely not going to help us with this. I think it's pretty clear
> 	that the RAPs (e.g. NetServerEnum2 and NetShareEnum) we're using now were
> 	abandoned by MS a long time ago so we need to get up to speed with Win2K.
> 	We need DCE/RPC. There's a book by one of the Samba TNG guys called "DCE/RPC
> 	over SMB: Samba and Windows NT Domain Internals" by Luke Kenneth Casson
> 	Leighton. He's actually posted here a few times. Anyway, I have this book and I'm
> 	reading right now. My interest was the NetLogon process (this would help Kammy I
> 	think BTW) but the svrsvc pipe does the share and server enumeration you saw with
> 	Win2k. It's doable but everything is encrypted and I need to implement the Network
> 	Data Representation (NDR), all of the Microsoft-isms are TOTALLY undocumented,
> 	I have to read the opengroup docs, etc, etc ....
> 	It is non-trivial. But I probably would not do it if it were.
> 	Mike

More information about the jcifs mailing list