FW: WIN NT 4.0 NO GO & YES I HAVE ENCRYPTED PASSWORDS
Gerry Maddock
gerrym at futuremetals.com
Thu Oct 11 11:43:23 GMT 2001
I'm forwarding this "discussion" onto this list, incase any of you might be
able to help. AT the very bottom of this email was my original question
posted to samba-ntdom. Any help would be appreciated.
-----Original Message-----
From: samba-ntdom-admin at lists.samba.org
[mailto:samba-ntdom-admin at lists.samba.org]On Behalf Of Gerry Maddock
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 2:02 PM
To: Joseph
Cc: samba-ntdom at lists.samba.org
Subject: RE: WIN NT 4.0 NO GO & YES I HAVE ENCRYPTED PASSWORDS
Ok, I changed log level to =3, now I'm getting some logs. Here is the log
file for the NT box I am testing with. I didnt attach the whole log, its now
HUGE. I can forward the entire log if needed. Here is part of it.
2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 1 of length 174
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBnegprot (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(316)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(349)
Requested protocol [PC NETWORK PROGRAM 1.0]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(349)
Requested protocol [XENIX CORE]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(349)
Requested protocol [MICROSOFT NETWORKS 1.03]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(349)
Requested protocol [LANMAN1.0]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(349)
Requested protocol [Windows for Workgroups 3.1a]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(349)
Requested protocol [LM1.2X002]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(349)
Requested protocol [LANMAN2.1]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(349)
Requested protocol [NT LM 0.12]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/negprot.c:reply_negprot(433)
Selected protocol NT LM 0.12
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 2 of length 198
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBsesssetupX (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(316)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_sesssetup_and_X(865)
Domain=[SHADOW] NativeOS=[Windows NT 1381] NativeLanMan=[]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_sesssetup_and_X(876)
sesssetupX:name=[administrator]
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:push_sec_ctx(284)
push_sec_ctx(0, 0) : sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 1
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(316)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 1
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:get_current_groups(167)
get_current_groups: uid 0 is in 1 groups: 547
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:pop_sec_ctx(423)
pop_sec_ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:get_current_groups(167)
get_current_groups: uid 0 is in 1 groups: 547
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/password.c:register_vuid(322)
uid 595 registered to name administrator
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/password.c:register_vuid(324)
Clearing default real name
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/password.c:register_vuid(326)
User name: administrator Real name:
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:chain_reply(982)
Chained message
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBtconX (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(316)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/password.c:authorise_login(787)
authorise_login: ACCEPTED: validated uid ok as non-guest
(user=administrator)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/service.c:make_connection(477)
Connect path is /tmp
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:push_sec_ctx(284)
push_sec_ctx(0, 0) : sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 1
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(316)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 1
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:get_current_groups(167)
get_current_groups: uid 0 is in 1 groups: 547
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:pop_sec_ctx(423)
pop_sec_ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:get_current_groups(167)
get_current_groups: uid 0 is in 1 groups: 547
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_access_check(239)
se_access_check: user sid is
S-1-5-21-1132588640-3893169706-2677359455-2190
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_access_check(242)
se_access_check: also S-1-5-21-1132588640-3893169706-2677359455-2095
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_access_check(242)
se_access_check: also S-1-1-0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_access_check(242)
se_access_check: also S-1-5-2
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_access_check(242)
se_access_check: also S-1-5-11
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/vfs.c:vfs_init_default(98)
Initialising default vfs hooks
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(316)
setting sec ctx (595, 547) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(322)
1 user groups:
547
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/vfs.c:vfs_ChDir(643)
vfs_ChDir to /tmp
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/service.c:make_connection(606)
shadow (10.1.1.108) connect to service IPC$ as user administrator
(uid=595, gid=547) (pid
1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(316)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_tcon_and_X(387)
tconX service=ipc$ user=administrator
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 3 of length 95
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(316)
setting sec ctx (595, 547) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(322)
1 user groups:
547
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/nttrans.c:nt_open_pipe(621)
nt_open_pipe: Known pipe srvsvc opening.
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 4 of length 152
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBtrans (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:reply_trans(484)
trans <\PIPE\> data=72 params=0 setup=2
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:named_pipe(336)
named pipe command on <> name
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 1] smbd/ipc.c:api_fd_reply(294)
api_fd_reply: INVALID PIPE HANDLE: 86c5
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:api_no_reply(256)
Unsupported API fd command
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 5 of length 46
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBclose (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/error.c:error_packet(136)
error packet at line 255 cmd=4 (SMBclose) eclass=1 ecode=6
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 6 of length 95
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/nttrans.c:nt_open_pipe(621)
nt_open_pipe: Known pipe srvsvc opening.
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 7 of length 152
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBtrans (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:reply_trans(484)
trans <\PIPE\> data=72 params=0 setup=2
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:named_pipe(336)
named pipe command on <> name
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 1] smbd/ipc.c:api_fd_reply(294)
api_fd_reply: INVALID PIPE HANDLE: 86c6
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:api_no_reply(256)
Unsupported API fd command
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 8 of length 46
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBclose (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/error.c:error_packet(136)
error packet at line 255 cmd=4 (SMBclose) eclass=1 ecode=6
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 9 of length 95
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/nttrans.c:nt_open_pipe(621)
nt_open_pipe: Known pipe srvsvc opening.
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 10 of length 152
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBtrans (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:reply_trans(484)
trans <\PIPE\> data=72 params=0 setup=2
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:named_pipe(336)
named pipe command on <> name
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 1] smbd/ipc.c:api_fd_reply(294)
api_fd_reply: INVALID PIPE HANDLE: 86c7
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/ipc.c:api_no_reply(256)
Unsupported API fd command
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 11 of length 46
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
switch message SMBclose (pid 1269)
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/error.c:error_packet(136)
error packet at line 255 cmd=4 (SMBclose) eclass=1 ecode=6
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(837)
Transaction 12 of length 95
[2001/10/11 13:55:58, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(650)
-----Original Message-----
From: samba-ntdom-admin at lists.samba.org
[mailto:samba-ntdom-admin at lists.samba.org]On Behalf Of Joseph
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:45 PM
To: Gerry Maddock
Cc: samba-ntdom at lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: WIN NT 4.0 NO GO & YES I HAVE ENCRYPTED PASSWORDS
Try increasing the debug level a little and see if you get anything
useful in the log files.
Gerry Maddock wrote:
> I thought it might have been some of the "optimizations" I added to
> /etc/sysctl.conf,so I reverted back to the orinal sysctl.conf with no
> optimizations straight off the RH7.1 install, rebooted and still nothing.
> However, once I lost the "optimizations" I did notice a log.shadow, which
> Shadow is one of the NT boxes I'm trying to connect from, but the
log.shadow
> was empty. Currently, I'm still running the default sysctl.conf from the
> RH7.1 install (with no added "optimizations" just to rule this out....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samba-ntdom-admin at lists.samba.org
> [mailto:samba-ntdom-admin at lists.samba.org]On Behalf Of Bruno Gimenes
> Pereti
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:04 PM
> To: samba-ntdom at lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: WIN NT 4.0 NO GO & YES I HAVE ENCRYPTED PASSWORDS
>
>
> I got a problem this week that may be related to your problem. I'd blocked
> icmp to the PDC (RedHat 7.1 Samba 2.2.1a rpm). No problem to access the
> server but when I tried to join the domain with a W2k I couldn't. I
allowed
> the icmp traffic and still couldn't join. When I restarted the smb daemon
I
> could join the domain as before.
>
> Maybe this can help you.
>
> Bruno Gimenes Pereti.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris" <cknorton.nei-inc.com at mail.nei-inc.com>
> To: "Gerry Maddock" <gerrym at futuremetals.com>
> Cc: "William L. Terry" <bill at lynden2.sweye.com>;
> <samba-ntdom at lists.samba.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: WIN NT 4.0 NO GO & YES I HAVE ENCRYPTED PASSWORDS
>
>
>
>>I also, had this problem running RedHat 7.1 with samba -2.0.10-2. I
>>would get the "\\SambaShare is not accessible" from my NT, W2K, and
>>WinMe machines but I rebooted my samba server and then all of a sudden
>>I could access the samba share.
>>
>>Maybe this will give someone a clue as to what might be the problem.
>>
>>
>>Gerry Maddock wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks! I'm glad I'm not the only one! If I hear anything or somehow rig
>>>
> it
>
>>>to work, I'll let you know what I did. Please do the same for me.
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: samba-ntdom-admin at lists.samba.org
>>>[mailto:samba-ntdom-admin at lists.samba.org]On Behalf Of William L. Terry
>>>Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 11:47 AM
>>>To: samba-ntdom at lists.samba.org
>>>Subject: Re: WIN NT 4.0 NO GO & YES I HAVE ENCRYPTED PASSWORDS
>>>
>>>
>>>Gerry Maddock wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am in the process of upgrading my existing samba 2.05a PDC on an
>>>>old box running RH6.2 to a new faster box running Samba 2.2.1a on a
>>>>RH7.1 box. I have all the same files and directories as the old samba
>>>>box including the same smb.conf file (the only thing changed in the
>>>>smb.conf were changes to its PDC so I wouldn't have 2 PDC's on the same
>>>>subnet). All of my Nt 4.0 boxes are sp6 with all of the latest security
>>>>patches. Whenever I try to connect to the new Samba box from my NT box I
>>>>get:>
>>>>
>>>>\\Penguin is not accessible.
>>>>
>>>>The remote procedure call failed and did not execute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I also have this problem with redhat 7.1 and samba 2.2.1a . It is to the
>>>outside world as if this machine does not exist. I have 16 samba boxes
>>>out there around the state serving up domains for our locations. I have
>>>used everything from samba-tng2.5 to samba2.2.0 with success. The last
>>>
> good
>
>>>combination I got was 2.2.0 with a redhat 7.0 box. I also use a 2.0.7 as
>>>
> a
>
>>>non domain controller on a redhat 7.1 box successfully. I have tried
>>>
> with
>
>>>two
>>>separate installs to use 2.2.1a with redhat7.1. I also suspected the
>>>firewall
>>>rules, but I intentionally blew these away with no positive results. The
>>>only
>>>indication I get that the samba domain exists is that when I give the
>>>
> domain
>
>>>a
>>>name, the client sees that that domain exists, but can't see any machines
>>>
> in
>
>>>it.
>>>You can also do "nmblookup -B ACLIENT '* '" successfully.
>>>
>>>I am also stumped, but I will continue to slog along and see If I can
>>>stumble
>>>across something.
>>>
>>>--
>>>William L. Terry (bill at sweye.com)
>>>Southwestern Eye Center http://www.sweye.com/
>>>Information Systems
>>>480-892-8400 ext. 142
>>>
>
>
More information about the samba
mailing list