[linux-cifs-client] Re: NTLM Response in the LM field...

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 21:30 -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> Regarding an earlier topic...
> 
> Regarding the use of the NTLM response in place of the LM Response when
> the client has been instructed to *not* send the LM Response, I found this
> comment in my own book:

> So...  It's probably not wrong for Samba to ignore the second password 
> field (the NTLM or CaseSensitivePassword field) when in SECURITY=SERVER 
> mode.  It's also safest if the client includes the NTLM response in both 
> fields as Windows does.

Chris - it's just a bug, nothing more.  I've had it explained in great
detail, and it's easily fixed.  I just need to get some motivation to
finally fix the calling convention for that particular routine (which
has shown other problems too).

Currently I'm up to my neck in kerberos and GSSAPI ;-)

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux-cifs-client/attachments/20041229/6ae16624/attachment.bin