[Samba] Serious grief with a Samba connection

[Dan White]

OK, back at work

On the Sun box:
The suggested commands did not work as suggested, but I did find the proper options for this system

"smbd -V" says 2.2.8a
"testparm -x" says lots of stuff including "encrypt passwords = yes"

I will talk with the network guys about NTLM

----- sato x <garasi9 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Gaiseric Vandal <gaiseric.vandal at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My guess is that they may have required NTLMv2 or something thing 
> similar on the Win machines.  If these machines are part of an Active 
> Directory domain,  it would be relatively easy for this to be done.
>
> http://www.dennek.com/2009/03/system-error-1240-the-account-is-not-
> authorized-to-login-from-this-station/
>
> You can use gpedit.msc on XP to check your security settings.
>
>
> "smbd -v" would tell you the samba version.
> "testparm -v | more "  would let you check the various settings.
>
>
> Are you the sys admin for the solaris box?
>
>
>
> On 11/25/09 14:52, Dan White wrote:
>> The server is on a Sun box (uname says SunOS 5.8) I do not know what 
>> version of samba is running
>>
>> For the last year and a half, I have made a daily connection from a 
>> Windows XP box with the following command:
>>
>> new use G: \\server\volume /USER:userid password
>>
>> This makes a "G" network drive that serves the purpose.
>>
>> About a month ago, network folks upstream from us spewed a bunch of 
>> policy updates that caused serious trouble.  The worst being mine.
>>
>> Now, if I try the same command on an XP box, the command executes 
>> successfully, the G-drive appears and then blinks to say 
>> "Disconnected Network Drive"
>>
>> Because some of our team use them, I tried from a Windows 2000 box.  
>> The same command responds with :
>>
>> System Error 1240 has occurred.  The account is not authorized to log 
>> in from this station"
>>
>> I checked the smb.conf file and found that the samba server is 
>> configured for encrypted passwords.  This error makes no sense.
>>
>> The local network folks are convinced this is a Unix problem.
>>
>> Any clues out there for this clueless one ?
>