[linux-cifs-client] Linux CIFS NTLMSSP mount failing against win2k8
shirishpargaonkar at gmail.com
Wed Apr 21 08:29:33 MDT 2010
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton at samba.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:58:23 +1000
> Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 22:44 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> > - then I read the spec more carefully. The problem is that the existing
>> > code doesn't try to use NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_EXTENDED_SESSIONSECURITY
>> > (aka NTLM2 -- not to be confused with NTLMv2).
>> > Without that, the server expects signatures done using rc4, but cifs
>> > universally uses md5 signatures.
>> This isn't the case. SMB signing is always MD5. NTLM2 simply changes
>> the 'effective' challenge and the session key, by providing a value in
>> the 'LM hash' to include with the Negotiate-provided challenge.
> Interesting. That seems to be contradictory to what the MS-NLMP
> document says. If you have a look at section 220.127.116.11, you'll see that
> the algorithm for computing the signature does not use md5. However if
> you negotiate extended session security (aka NTLM2) or use NTLMv2, then
> you're supposed to use md5. Perhaps we should bring that up on the
> dochelp list?
> In any case, I think the right solution is just to have CIFS always use
> extended session security and NTLMv2.
If by extended session security you mean NTLM2, are not NTLMv2 and
NTLM2 both authentication mechanisms and orthogonal to each other?
In which case, I think cifs/smb2 clients should at least make NTLMv2 auth mech
within NTLMSSP (Raw or SPNEGO) work against a Windows server
like Windows7/Vista/2008 server, with and without SMB signing.
NTLMv.2 in NTLMSSP will work with LMCompatibililtyLevel settings of
0 through 5. I am not whether NTLM2 will work with with settings (eg. 4, 5)
and I am not sure whether NTLM2 needs/works_with SMB signing i.e.
how to calculate session key, mac key, signature etc.
>> > So we need to negotiate with that flag
>> > too. At this point, I don't have the time to undertake this project
>> > (and it does seem to be a project), so I've left this code alone for
>> > now. It may be quite some time before I can fix this. It would be great
>> > if someone else could take on this project instead :)
>> > There are a couple of other things that could stand to be fixed too:
>> > - The client uses NTLMv1 auth in the exchange. It seems like it would
>> > be better to use NTLMv2 instead. Are there any known servers that
>> > support the NTLMSSP GSSAPI scheme but that don't support NTLMv2 auth?
>> There are. The compatibility for NTLMv2 is dependent entirely on the
>> domain controller, while 'NTLM2 session security' does not need
>> co-operation from the DC.
>> However, all real world DCs now support NTLMv2, as long as you get the
>> workstation names right etc.
>> > - The code uses its own crypto routines. It would be preferable to have
>> > it use the kernel's crypto API where possible.
>> > - being able to do SPNEGO-wrapped NTLMSSP instead of just "raw" would
>> > also be great.
>> > Anyway, hopefully these notes will be helpful to whomever ends up
>> > fixing this code.
>> I'm happy to help confuse you further if required ;-)
> Thanks. This protocol is INSANE. I think we're going to have to
> overhaul a lot of the CIFS crypto from the ground up in order to do
> this right.
> Jeff Layton <jlayton at samba.org>
More information about the samba-technical