search for: badlock

Does mitigation of the so-called BADLOCK CVE (CVE-2016-2118) for Samba 3.x imply an upgrade to a non-vulnerable version of the tdb library? If so, can someone point me to any documentation on the tdb vulnerability? Thanks, Sam

Do you know why Red Hat updated libtdb as part of their remediation for Badlock on Samba4? https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-0612.html On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Sam Gardner wrote: > > Does mitigation of the so-called BADLOCK CVE (CVE-2016-2118) for Samba > 3.x...

Hi, Microsoft some time ago introduced Hardened UNC Paths, and in April published the Badlock security fixes, which seem to be related to that. Samba at the same time published versions 4.4.1 (and 4.4.2). Even after reading the release notes of Samba 4.4.1 several times, I still do not know whether I must manually adjust smb.conf to be protected from these vulnerabilities. What I do kn...

Hi, Due to "Red Hat Vulnerability Response: BADLOCK", an automatic samba package RHEL5 update was apply on our system. This broke "The trust relationship between this workstation and the primary domain failed" (error message logon client) in my environnement production. So, I use now 3.6.23-12.el5_11, I see they are new directive...

...an/listinfo/centos>* Adding the following to the global section of smb.conf worked for me: client signing = required server signing = auto But... The Community forum at ClearOS has a sticky thread on this topic. The thread link is at https://www.clearos.com/clearfoundation/social/community/badlock-information-hub Thread info: - Bug - Badlock information hub - This thread is to track and register information in regards to the Badlock bug which is scheduled to release on April 12th 2016 at around 1700 UTC. As soon as we have a fix will will need extensive and concentrated testing. More det...

Hi, We support an older version SMB1 server (propietary implementation) which does not support extended security . Mapping a share from that server, using smbclient, was working before applying badlock patches (to the smbclient) , with default settings in smb.conf. However, after applying badlock patches, smbclient fails to map with default settings. When I set the option : "client ntlmv2 auth = no", mapping works fine, however it uses ntlmv1 rather than ntlmv2 . I am suspecting it is...

...s, I have the same issue, I had to downgrade...centos > 5.11 latest. > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Johan GLENAC > <johan.glenac at ac-guyane.fr <mailto:johan.glenac at ac-guyane.fr>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Due to "Red Hat Vulnerability Response: BADLOCK", an automatic > samba package RHEL5 update was apply on our system. > This broke "The trust relationship between this workstation and > the primary domain failed" (error message logon client) in my > environnement production. > > So, I use now 3...

I will follow this, I have the same issue, I had to downgrade...centos 5.11 latest. On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Johan GLENAC <johan.glenac at ac-guyane.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > Due to "Red Hat Vulnerability Response: BADLOCK", an automatic samba > package RHEL5 update was apply on our system. > This broke "The trust relationship between this workstation and the > primary domain failed" (error message logon client) in my environnement > production. > > So, I use now 3.6.23-12.el5_11, I s...

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Sam Gardner wrote: > Does mitigation of the so-called BADLOCK CVE (CVE-2016-2118) for Samba 3.x > imply an upgrade to a non-vulnerable version of the tdb library? > > If so, can someone point me to any documentation on the tdb vulnerability? There were no tdb vulnerabilities in the badlock code release.

...ofile. Needless to say, a job which should have taken 1 to 2 hours >> took 7. >> >> I still have no idea why the problem occurred, is there an issue with >> the >> latest samba update. All I could find online was that the update >> related to >> a fix for badlock vulnerability. >> Peter Lawrie > Peter, > > The badlock patches have been a big problem for Samba classic > domains. Many have posted asking for help, but I have seen no > solution presented on this list; i.e. the silence is deafening. It may > be that NT4 classic domain...

Hi all, A - I thought badlock mitigation was about encrypting SMB traffic, at least most part of it. And this encryption of most part of data transfer could (or should) lower performances. It seems I was wrong: smallest part (something like commands) are encrypted but not SMB traffic (ie file transfer). This for SMB protocol p...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello everybody, since the patch for all the badlock bugs it is not possible to access a Samba 4 ADDC-database with ldb-tools. Everytime I try it, I get the following error: root at addc-02:~# ldbsearch -H ldaps://addc-02.example2.net -U administrat or TLS failed to missing crlfile - with 'tls verify peer = as_strict_as_possible' When I ad...

Hi, Samba has released patch for CVE-2016-2118 from 3.6.x release onwards. We use samba 3.0.35 in our product. Is there any patch available for 3.0.35? -- Regards Madhu

On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 19:37 +0200, Stefan Kania wrote: > Hello everybody, > > since the patch for all the badlock bugs it is not possible to access > a Samba 4 ADDC-database with ldb-tools. Everytime I try it, I get the > following error: ... > When I add: > ---------------------- > tls verify peer = no_check > ---------------------- > to smb.conf I will get the following error: > &g...

...a local user on each to match the samba username and copy the profile. Needless to say, a job which should have taken 1 to 2 hours took 7. I still have no idea why the problem occurred, is there an issue with the latest samba update. All I could find online was that the update related to a fix for badlock vulnerability. Peter Lawrie

I disabled client signing from the client side, via OS X's global nsmb.conf file: https://discussions.apple.com/message/30282470#30282470 The performance was back to over 600 MB/s, as compared to 60 MB/s with signing. It just seems a bit weird to me that Apple, in response to the Badlock bug, would have changed the OS X client default to something with such drastic performance implications, without much notice. My contact at Apple said that the engineers were able to replicate the slow performance on OS X Server as well, so even if they didn't test it with Samba on Linux or Fre...

...have taken 1 to 2 >>> hours >>> took 7. >>> >>> I still have no idea why the problem occurred, is there an issue >>> with the >>> latest samba update. All I could find online was that the update >>> related to >>> a fix for badlock vulnerability. >>> Peter Lawrie >> Peter, >> >> The badlock patches have been a big problem for Samba classic >> domains. Many have posted asking for help, but I have seen no >> solution presented on this list; i.e. the silence is deafening. It >> ma...

Hello, I run a CentOS 6 machine with samba, serving approx. 150 Windows users with samba running as an NT-like PDC. After today's samba update (samba-3.6.23-30.el6_7.x86_64 etc.), nobody can log in. They all get the "Trust relationship failed" error message. If I downgrade: yum downgrade samba-common samba-winbind samba-winbind-clients samba-client samba samba-doc

Did you update your Windows clients? On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Mogens Kjaer <mk at lemo.dk> wrote: > Hello, > > I run a CentOS 6 machine with samba, serving approx. 150 Windows users > with samba running as an NT-like PDC. > > After today's samba update (samba-3.6.23-30.el6_7.x86_64 etc.), nobody can > log in. > > They all get the "Trust

FYI: https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2016-April/199013.html On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Bill Baird <bill.baird at phoenixmi.com> wrote: > I'm seeing the exact same behavior in my environment (NT4 PDC, not AD). I > had to downgrade samba get systems working again. > > The full error message is: > > "The trust relationship between this workstation and