extended security & Negprot response

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Thu Aug 8 04:21:03 GMT 2002

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

More information about the samba-technical mailing list