[linux-cifs-client] Rudi's question about smbd/smbfs/cifsvfs

[Christopher R. Hertel]

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 10:56:05PM +0100, Rudi Chiarito wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:28:13PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> > I think you're saying that W2K, when it's not a Domain member, will
> > correctly process the NTLM response against it's own local SAM database,
> > even if the ASCII password field is empty.  Yes?
> 
> I tried mounting from a Linux box a share that resides on a W2K server.
> AFAIK (I'm not an administrator on that server, so I can't double check)
> the W2K system is a domain member, while the Linux box definitely isn't.
> 
> Mounting that share succeeds regardless of the number of copies of the
> NTLM response (1 or 2) that cifs or smbfs send in the setup request.

If the W2K-ish box is a domain member, then it will use the SAM database 
on the DC as if it were a local SAM database (essentially using the same 
function calls, except that they're transported via RPC to the DC).

All that really tells us (and I think this is what you were saying) is 
that the Windows equivalent of 'security = user' works.

It would be an interesting tangent to find out whether 'security = user' 
mode works properly using a Samba server.  I'm guessing it will.

Chris -)-----

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org