[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cifs-protocol
Subject:    Re: [cifs-protocol] RE: MS-SAMR missing SID name use type ?
From:       "ronnie sahlberg" <ronniesahlberg () gmail ! com>
Date:       2008-11-10 22:49:03
Message-ID: c9a3e4540811101449w2f2b300u111f75561e68368 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I see where the confusion has arised from now.


LSA and SAMR both contain a definition for SID_NAME_TYPE but they are
subtly different.

The definitions of SID_NAME_TYPE in LSA and SAMR are identical up to
item 8 where the SAMR version ends.
LSA contains two extra name types   COMPUTER==9 and LABEL==10


Any particular reason why SAMR and LSA uses similar but different
definitions of this structure?
This leads to confusion.


regards
ronnie sahlberg



On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:36 PM, ronnie sahlberg
<ronniesahlberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Obaid
> 
> 
> Some new information relevant to this issue has just been received by me.
> Please disregard my previous post to let me digest this new
> inconsistency in the documentation before i follow up.
> Please leave the case open until I have investigated.
> 
> 
> regards
> ronnie sahlberg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:55 AM, ronnie sahlberg
> <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Obaid,
> > Since I was the originator for this request,
> > If you have looked but not found any indication that there are any
> > additional sid types than those listed
> > I assume that SidTypeComputer = 9   (or something similar) must be a
> > mistake in the way that these things were discovered previously in
> > samba or wireshark.
> > 
> > 
> > You can close this issue as far as I am concerned.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Obaid Farooqi <obaidf@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew:
> > > I tried to dig this up but the scope of your question is currently just too \
> > > broad. It would help greatly if you can give a little more information about \
> > > the scenario in which you saw this enum. Is there any additional information \
> > > that you or another member of Samba can recall that will help reduce the \
> > > breadth of the scope? Even a timeframe that the scenario was experienced may \
> > > prove to be useful. 
> > > Thanks
> > > Obaid Farooqi
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet@samba.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:48 PM
> > > To: Obaid Farooqi
> > > Cc: 'ronnie sahlberg'; 'pfif@tridgell.net'; 'cifs-protocol@samba.org'
> > > Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] RE: MS-SAMR missing SID name use type ?
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 17:22 -0700, Obaid Farooqi wrote:
> > > > Good Afternoon Ronnie:
> > > > I am still waiting for your response. We need this info to move forward on \
> > > > this case.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I believe there might be one additional value for this enum to
> > > > describe a sid for a machine/computer :
> > > > 
> > > > SidTypeComputer = 9   (or something similar)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This assumption is based on Wireshark and Samba4 code.
> > > 
> > > Because of the long history of Samba - without suitable documentation for the \
> > > most part, sometimes myths and legends build up.  That said, I'm unable to \
> > > produce this value on the wire for LSA lookup names. 
> > > What we are asking is for is some research and clarification (if possible).  We \
> > > can't ask you how we got this in the first place, but we were hoping you might \
> > > be able to do some digging, to check the IDL and see if this value ever occours \
> > > in this enum in windows (ie, is this a cut-down enum), or if there is another \
> > > similar (but not identical) enum that we might have got confused with. 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Andrew Bartlett
> > > http://samba.org/~abartlet/
> > > Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
> > > Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
> > > 
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@cifs.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]