[Samba] Fwd: Need the ability to edit Samba SIDs.

[Rowland penny]

On 02/07/2019 15:37, Zombie Ryushu via samba wrote:
> On 07/02/2019 10:17 AM, Rowland penny via samba wrote:
>> On 02/07/2019 14:40, Zombie Ryushu wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2019 09:32 AM, Rowland penny via samba wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2019 13:52, Zombie Ryushu via samba wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2019 06:10 AM, Rowland penny via samba wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/07/2019 10:31, Zombie Ryushu via samba wrote:
>>>>>>> I have a Samba problem with eGroupware. Samba 4 is screwing with my
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eGroupware UIDs causing Havoc. Samba 4 uses the last four Digits of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> SID rather than the UID Number.
>>>>>> If you are running Samba as an AD DC, then Unix UID != RID (what you
>>>>>> are referring to as the 'last four Digits')
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?? I need to know how to alter my user
>>>>>>> entry SID so that the last four digits of the SID is congruent with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> UID Numbers of my users.
>>>>>> Do not even think of doing this, it will break AD.
>>>>>>> To fix this; I need the ability to edit the last digits of the SID.
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> tried shutting down the Samba server and using ldbmodify, but that
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> working. The SiD is in some sort of strange Hash. pdbedit and
>>>>>>> samba-tool
>>>>>>> gives me the error: ?? - samldb: objectSid must not be specified!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm, quickly approaching the need to re-provision my entire Domain,
>>>>>>> because I Have already corrected this stuff in my older OpenLDAP
>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>> I'd have to re-run Classic Upgrade. I'd rather not lose all my
>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>> Please help!
>>>>>> Classicupgrade is probably the way to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like you need to tell us just how you are running Samba at the
>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rowland
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am running Samba 4 as an AD, on one system, but I have a legacy
>>>>> OpenLDAP system that runs Samba in NT PDC mode that I am migrating
>>>>> from.
>>>>> There are two Domain Controllers, one migrated, one is not.
>>>> You can only migrate from one NT4-style PDC (in fact you can only have
>>>> one PDC in a domain, multiple BDC's are allowed), so unless you have
>>>> two NT4-style domains, you can turn the PDC's off. If you do have two
>>>> NT4-style domains, then you will need to classicupgrade to two AD
>>>> domains.
>>>>> The origin of the wrong SIDs is actually OpenLDAP. The same SIDs were
>>>>> migrated over.
>>>> No, it sounds like they were the correct SID's
>>>>> eGroupware is one of the few programs with an outright Samba 4 (Active
>>>>> Directory) Mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> In OpenLDAP mode, eGroupware will use uidNumber. in Samba 4 AD mode,
>>>>> eGroupware will use the last digits of the SID to determine the
>>>>> eGroupware ID.
>>>> The last 4 digits of the SID are known as the RID, but seeing as
>>>> egroupware is a Unix package, why didn't they use the 'uidNumber' &
>>>> 'gidNumber' attributes, if you classicupgraded from an LDAP PDC, you
>>>> will have these in AD
>>>>> everything from E-mail ACLs for Thunderbird, to Calender Items and
>>>>> Contacts use this as a Primary key in its database.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what has been happening, is that if, say the Unix UID is 501,
>>>>> and the
>>>>> Object SID ends in 998, eGroupware will assume the UID is 998.
>>>> The SID shouldn't end in '998', all normal AD users, groups etc start
>>>> at '1000', it is the Windows 'system' users & groups that start at
>>>> 500, see here:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-dtyp/81d92bba-d22b-4a8c-908a-554ab29148ab
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rowland
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The rationale is that not every Samba AD is RFC2307 Compliant.
>> Whilst this is technically correct (you have to specify
>> '--use-rfc2307' when provisioning), all the RFC2307 attributes are
>> standard in the Samba AD schema.
>>> And you
>>> are right, All SIDs start at 1000 and go up, and most of my users have a
>>> UID of more than 1000 except for two. Never the less, I've tried the SQL
>>> method to fix this by selecting the Affected rows, and determine that to
>>> make a much bigger mess than I started out with.
>> You cannot change a SID, it is what identifies an object (user, group
>> etc) in AD, it usually looks like this:
>>
>> S-1-5-21-xxxxxxxxxx-yyyyyyyyy-zzzzzzzzzz-AAAA
>>
>> Everything but the 'AAAA' identifies the Domain, the 'AAAA' is what
>> identifies the object to AD.
>>
>> What are the two numbers (RID's) you wish to change ?
>>
>> Rowland
>>
>>
>>> Is there anyway to fix this? I have a rather large eGroupware database
>>> hanging onthis.
>>>
>>
> I have more than two RIDs that I need to change. I have two RIDs that
> have a value of 502 and 998. (lower than 1000)

'502' is the RID for 'KRBTGT', you do not need this user in egroupware, 
DO NOT CHANGE THIS OBJECT'S SID

Haven't a clue who '998' is, unless it is something like 'vmail'

>
> Virtually every RID except for a few does not match its Unix UID. with
> things like: UID 1074 with RID 3006
This is very, very common, which is why I think using the RID to 
identify a user on Unix isn't a good idea.
>
> eGroupware thinks the RID = UID. This is causing Database Havoc. I need
> to be able to situate things so my UID and RID are the same.

This is egroupware's problem and I think they need to fix it, I mean 
'classicupgrading' an NT4-style domain is fairly common and likely to 
get more common.

Rowland