[jcifs] Alert: ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException with jcifs-1.1.3

[Johan Danforth]

Hi, we just went live on our intranet with a new portal, and it went fine for 
an hour or so, then all new visitors started to get these:

Error 500--Internal Server Error 
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 25
	at jcifs.smb.SmbSession.getChallengeForDomain(SmbSession.java:94)
	at jcifs.http.NtlmHttpFilter.doFilter(NtlmHttpFilter.java:123)
	at weblogic.servlet.internal.FilterChainImpl.doFilter
(FilterChainImpl.java:27)
	at 
weblogic.servlet.internal.WebAppServletContext$ServletInvocationAction.run
(WebAppServletContext.java:6354)
	at weblogic.security.acl.internal.AuthenticatedSubject.doAs
(AuthenticatedSubject.java:317)
	at weblogic.security.service.SecurityManager.runAs
(SecurityManager.java:118)
	at weblogic.servlet.internal.WebAppServletContext.invokeServlet
(WebAppServletContext.java:3635)
	at weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletRequestImpl.execute
(ServletRequestImpl.java:2585)
	at weblogic.kernel.ExecuteThread.execute(ExecuteThread.java:197)
	at weblogic.kernel.ExecuteThread.run(ExecuteThread.java:170)
 

The web.xml configuration for jcifs filter looks like this:

	<filter>
		<filter-name>PortalFilter</filter-name>
		<filter-class>jcifs.http.NtlmHttpFilter</filter-class>
		<!-- The hostname of the domain controller to use -->
		<init-param>
			<param-name>jcifs.netbios.wins</param-name>
			<param-value>x.x.x.x,x.x.x.x</param-value>
		</init-param>
		<init-param>
			<param-name>jcifs.smb.client.domain</param-name>
			<param-value>xxxxx</param-value>
		</init-param>
		<init-param>
			<param-name>jcifs.util.loglevel</param-name>
			<param-value>2</param-value>
		</init-param>
	</filter>
	

Some numbers and names replaced with 'x', but I guess you get the meaning.

We had to revert to an old jcifs version now (0.8.3) and point directly at one 
of our domain controlers. That old version has worked well with our previous 
version of the portal.

Any idea for the reason for this? Seems that it works fine as long as you have 
a low number of users. I think we passed 150 concurrent users or so, then 
things crashed...