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

List:       cifs-protocol
Subject:    Re: [cifs-protocol] Where is account lockout and password	expiry described in the docs?
From:       Sebastian Canevari <Sebastian.Canevari () microsoft ! com>
Date:       2013-10-30 21:00:48
Message-ID: 7901FC82BA1FD640885A2B4A344BC235074A019A () TK5EX14MBXC288 ! redmond ! corp ! microsoft ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Andrew,

I am still working on these questions.

I'll let you know as soon as I have news or follow ups.

Thanks!



Sebastian Canevari | Escalation Engineer | US-CSS Developer Support Core (DSC) \
Protocol Team P +1 469 775 7849 
One Microsoft Way, 98052, Redmond, WA, USA http://support.microsoft.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet@samba.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:44 PM
To: Sebastian Canevari
Cc: cifs-protocol@samba.org; Interoperability Documentation Help
Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] Where is account lockout and password expiry described \
in the docs?

On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 11:53 +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 10:50 +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 09:26 +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 20:16 +0000, Sebastian Canevari wrote:
> > > > Hi Andrew,
> > > > 
> > > > Do you need further assistance from my end?
> > > 
> > > I do.  I was waiting on:
> > > 
> > > > > As soon as I have answers or questions I'll let you know.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks.  Please also include the details for how this happens in Kerberos, \
> > > > not just for NTLM, as I strongly suspect the semantics have subtle \
> > > > differences, particularly in forwarding. 
> > > 
> > > There is still no clear document explaining how this is handled 
> > > for Kerberos, and nothing that clearly describes how a NetLogon 
> > > SamLogon translates into a badPwdCount update.
> > > 
> > > I was waiting for those docs before proceeding, to avoid rework.  
> > 
> > I'm also wanting clarification on the UF_LOCKOUT flag in 
> > msDS-User-Account-Control-Computed and userAccountControl
> > 
> > It appears that msDS-User-Account-Control-Computed should be 
> > referred to by SAMR, as the source of the lockout algorithm, but 
> > there no reference from MS-SAMR to this attribute.
> > 
> > Indeed, it is unclear how UF_LOCKOUT and UF_PASSWORD_EXPIRED is to 
> > behave, as 3.1.1.6 (18) bans this bit, but in:
> > 
> > 3.1.1.8.10
> > userAccountControl
> > 1. If the UF_LOCKOUT bit (section 2.2.1.13) is set and the 
> > lockoutTime attribute is nonzero, the lockoutTime attribute MUST be 
> > updated to a value of zero.
> > 
> > This implies that it can be set in userAccountControl.  Also, the 
> > sense here seems backwards, surely clearing the bit sets lockoutTime to zero?
> > 
> > Also it says:
> > 
> > 2. The following bits, if set, MUST be unset before committing the
> > transaction: UF_LOCKOUT and
> > UF_PASSWORD_EXPIRED.
> > 
> > This further confuses me as to if these are computed or stored flags 
> > (I'm assuming computed).
> > 
> > This is the kind of level of detail I need in this area.
> 
> Additionally, as I'll need to implement the 
> ms-DS-User-Account-Control-Computed attribute, how do I implement
> 0x4000000
> UF_PARTIAL_SECRETS_ACCOUNT
> 0x8000000
> UF_USE_AES_KEYS
> 
> Because these are not included in MS-ADTS 3.1.1.4.5.17 
> msDS-User-Account-Control-Computed

Any update on these questions?

Thanks,

--
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT                   http://catalyst.net.nz


_______________________________________________
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]