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

[Steve French]

On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 16:58, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> 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 am not aware of any problems with cifs vfs authenticating with
Windows2000 or later (whether in a domain or not) with three exceptions.

1) When NTLMv2 is required by the server (in which case the cifs vfs
ntlmv2 code is disabled by default, and needs testing)
2) When Kerberos/SPNEGO authentication is required by the server (cifs
vfs spnego implementation is started but disabled by default and not
complete)
3) I have also noticed one WindowsXP service pack 2 standalone test
machine of mine (not in a domain).  This XP system acting as a server
won't authenticate users remotely - for this system no clients (neither
Windows or otherwise,not smbclient, not smbfs and not cifs vfs) can
authenticate as anything other than guest.  I assumed that this was due
to some enhanced security mode I accidently enabled on this system,
which IIRC based on a service pack install message requires some CD to
be installed on each client on the network in order to authenticate with
this system.  Wish I knew more about what was going on with this sytem,
but I was not too worried about it since my other WindowsXP clients
can't authenticate as user to this XP box either.