samba - Jun 2022 - DOMAIN\Administrator mapped to root vs. CVE-2020-25717 fix including "min domain uid" = 1000

Hi,

I run a small Linux based network that uses Samba for login (AD) and SMB file
sharing.

There are only 2 Windows machines:
1) A virtual machine running Windows 10 Pro that I only use to administer shares
and permissions with a GUI.
2) A sparely used Windows notebook

Recently I nedded to set some new permissions. Happens once in a few months.
So I logged into the Windows 10 machine as DOMAIN\Administrator. That worked
fine.

But sadly I couldn't access my fileserver. Windows wouldn't show its
shares. And If I directly navigate to a share
("\\fileserver.ad.mydom.intranet\myshare"), it would show error
0x80004005.

After some hours I figured out the reason:

The DOMAIN\Administrator is mapped to root on the domain controller:
!root = DOMAIN\Administrator

The fileserver log shows:
make_server_info_info3: Username 'DOMAIN\Administrator' is invalid on
this system, it does not meet 'min domain uid' restriction (0 <
1000): NT_STATUS_INVALID_TOKEN

This made me find out about the fix for CVE-2020-25717:
https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2020-25717.html

It introduced a setting "min domain uid", which is 1000 by default. So
it excluded my Administrator being mapped to root.

If I add
min domain uid = 0
to the smb.conf of the fileserver, everything works fine again. :)

So I could manage the permissions and finish work. :)

But... This change was probably introduced for good reasons. And I worked around
it. What do you think?
Did I open up a horrible security hole?
What are the implications?
Should "DOMAIN\Administrator" actually never be mapped to root?
As far as I remember the set up years ago, some things didn't work without
that.

Thanks in advance for your advice!
Reginald

PS: I'd love to get rid of Windows entirely in this network. Is there a
smooth Linux console only way to administer share and folder permissions for
groups and users without the Windows GUI nowadays?

On Fri, 2022-05-27 at 23:12 +0200, Reginald via samba
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I run a small Linux based network that uses Samba for login (AD) and SMB
file sharing.
You are fine.  I may write more next week, but don't stress.

Andrew,

-- 
Andrew Bartlett (he/him)        https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Samba Team Member (since 2001)  https://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT    https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

On 2022-05-27 at 23:12 +0200 Reginald via samba sent
off:
> If I add
> min domain uid = 0
> to the smb.conf of the fileserver, everything works fine again. :)
> 
> So I could manage the permissions and finish work. :)
> 
> But... This change was probably introduced for good reasons. And I worked
around it. What do you think?
> Did I open up a horrible security hole?
> What are the implications?
> Should "DOMAIN\Administrator" actually never be mapped to root?
this reminds me of that old bug report
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9837

I still have hope that Andrew will remove his veto on the change so that we can
finally get this properly by default for future setups.

Bj?rn