Hint on how Win2K etc choose raw NTLMSSP vs SPNEGO

[Jim McDonough]

>Here is another guess. The traces that I have that go directly to NTLMSSP
>do not have bit-4 in the Flags2 field set, but do have bit-11 (EXT_SEC)
>while the trace that I have that has bit-11 set, and uses SPNEGO, has
>bit-4 set.
>
>This bit is undocumented. I bet it is the bit that says, don't use raw
>NTLMSSP :-)
Sorry, all my traces, whether raw NTLMSSP or SPNEGO-encapsulated NTLMSSP
have this bit on.... at least through the negprot response (where it's
already decided).

I agree with Steve, that it's probably determined by whether or not there
is really an alternative...

----------------------------
Jim McDonough
IBM Linux Technology Center
Samba Team
6 Minuteman Drive
Scarborough, ME 04074
USA

jmcd at us.ibm.com
jmcd at samba.org

Phone: (207) 885-5565
IBM tie-line: 776-9984