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

[Steve French]

Looks like a strange, but now harmless smbd bug (I changed the cifs vfs
to also send the ntlm hash in both fields, as smbfs can do when lanman
is turned off) - for smbd to expect the same NTLM hash in both fields. 
I could see little harm in the cifs vfs sending the extra 24 bytes, but
it is strange.


On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 11:23, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> then the problem is that smbd 
> is looking in the wrong place for the response.  That being the case, it 
> could be:
>   - an older version of smbd, and newer versions have this fixed.
>   - a configuration error, some parameter telling smbd to look for the LM 
>     response.