search for: misundertood

Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not SSSD's. Isn't that correct? Putting it in another wo...

...ba's "Windows" services. Or do you mean it forwards NTLM requests to a different server ? Disabling NTLM altogether would be a useful feature if you are trying to minimize the attack surface. On 10/10/18 15:52, Reinaldo Souza Gomes via samba wrote: >  Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not SSSD's. Isn't that correct? > Putting it in anoth...

...a's "Windows" services. Or do you mean it forwards NTLM requests to a different server ? Disabling NTLM altogether would be a useful feature if you are trying to minimize the attack surface. On 10/10/18 15:52, Reinaldo Souza Gomes via samba wrote: > Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not SSSD's. Isn't that correct? > Putting it in anoth...

Hello, I think I have misundertood the relationship between cbq and the queue (such as Red) attached to it. This is my latest opion, please give me some advice on it: At beginning, I thought that a packet will be firstly classified by the CBQ where it will find the proper class it belongs to. Then the packet enters the queue atta...

...ean it forwards NTLM requests to a different server ? > > > Disabling NTLM altogether would be a useful feature if you are trying to > minimize the attack surface. > > > > > > > On 10/10/18 15:52, Reinaldo Souza Gomes via samba wrote: > >  Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to > prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and > forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get > SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not > SSSD's. Isn't that correct?...

How can I make sure that NTLM(SSP) will never be used?? I’ve set up Samba with SSSD and everything Works fine... except for a few Windows machines which every now and then happen to send NTLM authentication flags to the Samba server, which happily forwards them. And then the authentication fails because SSSD doesn’t support NTLM. I’ve tried all sorts of parameters combination on smb.conf

...ean it forwards NTLM requests to a different server ? > > > Disabling NTLM altogether would be a useful feature if you are trying to > minimize the attack surface. > > > > > > > On 10/10/18 15:52, Reinaldo Souza Gomes via samba wrote: > >  Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to > prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and > forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get > SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not > SSSD's. Isn't that correct?...

...gt; > > > > Disabling NTLM altogether would be a useful feature if you are trying to > > minimize the attack surface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/10/18 15:52, Reinaldo Souza Gomes via samba wrote: > > >  Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to > > prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and > > forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get > > SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not > > SSSD's. Isn'...

...ean it forwards NTLM requests to a different server ? > > > Disabling NTLM altogether would be a useful feature if you are trying to > minimize the attack surface. > > > > > > > On 10/10/18 15:52, Reinaldo Souza Gomes via samba wrote: > >  Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to > prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and > forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get > SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not > SSSD's. Isn't that correct?...

...gt; > > > > Disabling NTLM altogether would be a useful feature if you are trying to > > minimize the attack surface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/10/18 15:52, Reinaldo Souza Gomes via samba wrote: > > >  Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to > > prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and > > forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get > > SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not > > SSSD's. Isn'...

...ould be a useful feature if you are > trying to > > > minimize the attack surface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/10/18 15:52, Reinaldo Souza Gomes via samba wrote: > > > >  Forgive me if I have misundertood your words, but what I want is to > > > prevent Samba from accepting NTLM(v1, v2, SSP, or whatever) and > > > forwarding it, since SSSD does not support it. I am not trying to get > > > SSSD to support any kind of NTLM. So, this would be a Samba issue, not > > >...