Fwd: [PATCH 1/7] cifs: Bypass windows extended security for ntlmv2 negotiate

Steve French smfrench at gmail.com
Wed Aug 20 22:51:02 MDT 2014


This is an unusual sounding issue.  Any comments on this from the auth experts?

Seems better to investigate this more if we end up enforcing a "must
be within 5 minutes" threshold instead of this patch.  Have we done a
dochelp on this before?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon at samsung.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:39 AM
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] cifs: Bypass windows extended security for ntlmv2 negotiate
To: Steve French <smfrench at gmail.com>
Cc: Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar at gmail.com>, Pavel Shilovsky
<pshilovsky at samba.org>, linux-cifs at vger.kernel.org, Ashish Sangwan
<a.sangwan at samsung.com>


Windows machine has extended security feature which refuse to allow
authentication when there is time difference between server time and
client time when ntlmv2 negotiation is used. This problem is prevalent
in embedded enviornment where system time is set to default 1970.

We don't know yet the exact threshold for the time difference at which
the connection is refused but one comment in cifs code suggest that it
is around 5 minutes.

This patch tries to solve this problem by sending the received server
time during negotiate process as the current client time.

Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon at samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Ashish Sangwan <a.sangwan at samsung.com>
---
 fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c |    4 ++--
 fs/cifs/cifsglob.h    |    2 ++
 fs/cifs/cifssmb.c     |    2 ++
 fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c     |    1 +
 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c b/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c
index 4934347..d5cec81 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c
@@ -671,8 +671,8 @@ setup_ntlmv2_rsp(struct cifs_ses *ses, const
struct nls_table *nls_cp)
                        (ses->auth_key.response + CIFS_SESS_KEY_SIZE);
        ntlmv2->blob_signature = cpu_to_le32(0x00000101);
        ntlmv2->reserved = 0;
-       /* Must be within 5 minutes of the server */
-       ntlmv2->time = cpu_to_le64(cifs_UnixTimeToNT(CURRENT_TIME));
+       /* Hack to get around windows extended security */
+       ntlmv2->time = cpu_to_le64(ses->serverTime);
        get_random_bytes(&ntlmv2->client_chal, sizeof(ntlmv2->client_chal));
        ntlmv2->reserved2 = 0;

diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsglob.h b/fs/cifs/cifsglob.h
index ce24c1f..9344c94 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/cifsglob.h
+++ b/fs/cifs/cifsglob.h
@@ -796,6 +796,8 @@ struct cifs_ses {
        enum securityEnum sectype; /* what security flavor was specified? */
        bool sign;              /* is signing required? */
        bool need_reconnect:1; /* connection reset, uid now invalid */
+       __u64   serverTime;     /* Keeps a track of server time sent by server
+                                  during negotiate response */
 #ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_SMB2
        __u16 session_flags;
        char smb3signingkey[SMB3_SIGN_KEY_SIZE]; /* for signing smb3 packets */
diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
index 86a2aa5..ead2da0 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
@@ -584,6 +584,8 @@ CIFSSMBNegotiate(const unsigned int xid, struct
cifs_ses *ses)
        if (rc != 0)
                goto neg_err_exit;

+       ses->serverTime = le32_to_cpu(pSMBr->SystemTimeLow);
+       ses->serverTime |= ((__u64)le32_to_cpu(pSMBr->SystemTimeHigh) << 32);
        server->dialect = le16_to_cpu(pSMBr->DialectIndex);
        cifs_dbg(FYI, "Dialect: %d\n", server->dialect);
        /* Check wct = 1 error case */
diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c
index ed42234..a40f492 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c
@@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ SMB2_negotiate(const unsigned int xid, struct cifs_ses *ses)
        if (rc != 0)
                goto neg_exit;

+       ses->serverTime = le64_to_cpu(rsp->SystemTime);
        cifs_dbg(FYI, "mode 0x%x\n", rsp->SecurityMode);

        /* BB we may eventually want to match the negotiated vs. requested
--
1.7.7



-- 
Thanks,

Steve


More information about the samba-technical mailing list