[jcifs] NTLM Authentication and multiple domains

[Eric]

O'Rourke, James wrote:
> So given this case, it implies that an application with access to NetLogon
> RPC such as IIS in this case is able to defer resolving the domain until
> message 3, however using jCIFs as it currently stands, is not able to do
> this. 
> 

Kind of.  The authentication domain is known with the type 3; I don't 
think the server will actually "resolve" it though.  The server is 
joined to a domain, and receives an account on the domain controller; 
this is the account that is used to set up the NetLogon pipe.  So the 
server effectively talks to a single domain controller, regardless of 
what domain the user specifies; the domain controller uses trust 
relationships to talk to other domains.  I'm fuzzy on how this last bit 
works myself.

> Is it the case that in this current jCIFs scenario that the SMB server which
> provides the challenge in Type2, once it receives the Type3 response from
> the client, then in fact takes this response (Type3) + the challenge it
> provided and forwards it to the appropriate domain controller based on the
> actual domain information for the account being authenticated as is
> encapsulated in the Type3 message or is this not necessary. Perhaps I'm way
> off target. 
> 

The response has to go to the server that generated the challenge.  So 
whatever server generated the challenge in the type 2 message has to get 
the responses from the type 3 (even if the type 3 indicates a different 
authentication domain).  In the NetLogon scenario you could have the 
server send the challenge and response to an arbitrary/appropriate 
domain controller; however, the server would need to have a machine 
account established in each domain (i.e. it would need to "join" 
multiple domains).

> Finally, when a domain controller (say DC1) receives a Type3 message to
> authenticate joeuser say, but joeuser has only an account on another domain
> (with say DC2), which DC1 has a trust relationship with, then will this
> request be authenticated nonetheless?
> 

Yes; that's what the trust is for.


Eric