Account with no lanman hash [ was Re: [Samba] Machine accounts, Samba 3, NT Domain migration

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 15:55, Beast wrote:
> * Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> menulis:
> 
> > > 1. In which tools we trust the output? pwdump or rpc vampire? why
> > > the output is different?
> > 
> > Well, I understand how 'net rpc vampire' functions, and as it makes
> > *exactly* the same calls that an NT BDC makes, I consider it to be
> > the'correct' output.  
> 
> Just a wishes, is it possible to get pwdump.exe version of net rpc
> vampire? so we can get hashses output without installing full blown of
> samba and *script? 
> It then up to administrator what to do with the output, this is the
> cleanest soulution if you already have existing account in ldap.

'net rpc samdump' should do what you need

> Also, net rpc vampire has few advantage over pwdump, it can retrieve
> groups where pwdump can not.

pwdump was a quick hack, from what I understand...

> > 
> > I have not looked at the pwdump source, nor had any experience using
> > it, so I don't know why it's output would differ.
> > 
> > > 2. Is this mean I can not use 3.0.2 or 3.0.2a if I don't have
> > > LANMAN hash? 
> > 
> > This is correct.
> > 
> 
> Sorry for asking again here, can I use samba 3.0.3pre1? sincei can't
> use older version of samba. Just to make sure...

You can.

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20040327/2522b101/attachment.bin