[jcifs] Occasionally NTLM Filter fails...Please Help.

[Michael B Allen]

Now I remember you. You just can't give up on this can you?

All of your questions are answered in the post cited but clearly you
do not have sufficient technical understanding and therefore you
should just stop posting.

Do you really think that you can just heckle me into changing my mind?
Is that really going to be your strategy?

JCIFS is an implementation of the CIFS protocol which is completely
unrelated to HTTP. Moving foward we will be removing all HTTP related
code so there is no point in discussing future development of that
code. Even if you knew what you were talking about, it's off topic
here.

Fork you.

Mike

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM, John Baker
<jbaker at javasystemsolutions.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, it can't be fixed to make it totally secure, but it can be fixed to do
> what it was originally designed to do - provide a working example of an NTLM
> filter. I also assume it could be enhanced to support NTLMv2 given there are
> commercial products that do it - so it can't be impossible to do it securely,
> unless all these commercial products are insecure?
>
> Although, I don't really understand why one would use NTLMv2 over
> SPNEGO/Kerberos.  NTLM seems to be the backup option to me - if the SPNEGO
> token contains an NTLM token, there's little choice but to either deny or
> process.
>
>
> J
>
> On Monday 18 May 2009 16:18:51 you wrote:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:06 AM, John Baker
>>
>> <jbaker at javasystemsolutions.com> wrote:
>> > I suspect that once the static configuration has been replaced with
>> > something that can be specified at runtime, i.e. to allow different
>> > instances of jcifs with different configurations, it won't be too much
>> > effort to fix the NtlmHttpFilter.
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Actually no, the NtlmHttpFilter cannot be fixed. See this post for a
>> detailed explanation:
>>
>>   http://lists.samba.org/archive/jcifs/2008-October/008227.html