extended security & Negprot response

[Andrew Bartlett]

Steven French wrote:
> 
> There had been some discussion about the first 16 byte field in the data
> area of the negprot response (before the security blob) when extended
> security is enabled.   Ethereal and the SNIA CIFS spec correctly indicate
> that it is the Server's GUID but head's negprot_spnego (in smbd/negprot.c)
> puts an ascii name in there.   Maybe its harmless but I was intrigued that
> the GUID in the field is stored in the registry - it matches exactly with
> the value of services\lanmanserver\parameters\GUID in its local registry -
> which makes sense since it has to be available for non-AD connected
> machines including standalone workstations.

Yes - its just a quick hack.  Now that we have support for GUIDs we
could well send them.  As far as the clients are concerned, we just need
to send *somthing* - they don't seem to care what it actually is.  

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net