[jcifs] Dealing with simultaneous users in a Win2k3 environment (Ethereal packet capture)

[Michael Kerley]

>
>
>It would help a little if someone could produce a packet capture of the
>*correct* behavior so I know exactly what jCIFS *should* be doing (e.g. XP
>talking to Win2K3).
>  
>

I can get that packet capture for you, but I won't have access to that 
test environment again to get the capture until Monday (possibly Sunday, 
but no promises there).  As soon as I get it, I'll send it to you.

Thanks
Michael

Michael B Allen wrote:

>Michael Kerley said:
>  
>
>>Chris,
>>Here's the packet capture you asked for, along with a few extras:
>>
>>Windows2003.pcap - packet capture in Ethereal/libpcap format
>>    
>>
>
>Actually this is not a signing problem. Not really anyway. The server is
>returning ERRaccountExpired as one would expect for the GUEST account
>(jCIFS normally fails over from GUEST into "null" credentials which works
>with most LMBs). The problem is, jCIFS is choking on the signature before
>it has a chance to look at the error code. The main problem with this is
>that the signature is not supposed to be included until *after* the client
>has successfully authenticated.
>
>I'll look at this (and the many other issues that have surfaced recently)
>in comeing days.
>
>It would help a little if someone could produce a packet capture of the
>*correct* behavior so I know exactly what jCIFS *should* be doing (e.g. XP
>talking to Win2K3).
>
>Mike
>
>  
>
>>List.java - my test program
>>Output-clean.txt - STDOUT output from the text program
>>Output-hex.txt - Same output with jCIFS hex dumps enabled
>>
>>And just a little info on the network layout to help interpret those
>>packets:
>>
>>- The machine running the test program is 'enkoobox' (192.168.2.5)
>>- The Windows 2003 server is 'win2k3' (192.168.2.254)
>>- The domain name is 'smallbusiness'
>>- The user account in the domain is 'mike' (password 'michael')
>>
>>Thanks again for your help,
>>Michael
>>
>>P.S. I didn't know if all these attachments were appropriate for the
>>mailing
>>list, so that's why I sent it to you privately.  If you want to put it on
>>the mailing list, I don't have any problem with that.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>