similar to: Samba NT MD4 password check problem

People who have reported this bug (Endless Password Expiration in 3.0.25, bugzilla id #4630) can you please let me know if you're working on 64-bit machines please ? I'm trying to track this down for 3.0.25a and am working on a theory.... Jeremy.

Hello, don't know if this behavior is a bug, but I want to share this information. samba server version 3.4.3 is installed on solaris10 x86 compiled with gcc Reading specs from /usr/sfw/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.10/3.4.3/specs Configured with: /builds/sfw10-gate/usr/src/cmd/gcc/gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr/sfw --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --with-gnu-as --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld

Hello, "NEWS for rsync 3.0.0" <http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/src/rsync-3.0.0-NEWS> says: "Protocol 30 now uses MD5 checksums instead of MD4." But the "rsync man page" <http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync.html> does not mention MD5, but only talks about "MD4 checksum". I guess the man page is only a bit outdated? Or did I misunderstand

Are there multiple ways that Windows clients encrypt passwords? I'm seeing different behavior between two clients. On one, I can access a Samba share just fine. On the other, using the same username and password to access the same share, I get "incorrect password." Looking for the difference in Samba debug traces, I find it comes down to this: smb_password_ok: Checking SMB

If the problem machines are Windows 8 or later machines, it *could *be an SMB protocol negotiation issue. Windows 8 will attempt to negotiate SMB 3.11, but samba < 4.3 will cap at SMB 3.0. SMB 3.11 support came out with Samba 4.3.x. If this is the problem, you could either disable SMB2/3 on the Windows 8 box as noted in https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2696547, or possibly consider

Hello, While porting rsync 2.5.6 to .NET (C#), I noticed that the MD4 engine in the original source code in my possession behaved differently from the C# MD4 engine that I was using in my own code. While testing the file transfer between my program and a compiled version of rsync 2.5.6, I noticed that the file checksums generated for the entire file to detect corruption on the link were

Would the asm md4 implementation used by Shareaza (under the GNU GPL) be appropreate to use in order to accelerate rsync? http://shareaza.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/shareaza/trunk/shareaza/asm/MD4_asm.asm?view=log http://sourceforge.net/projects/shareaza/

Hello, I was wondering if its possible to extract the checksum that rsycn creates to verify the transfer of a file was successful? Id like to store it so I can verify the files at a later time. I was thinking I could just run an md5sum prior to rsync, but then I figured if rsycn is already doing it maybe I can just copy that checksum. I have sever tb's of smaller files I need to transfer so

Hi, Is there a bug with the NT MD4 password check?? With one password, I can't access the shares.. in the log it says: ntlm_password_check: NT MD4 password check failed for user jason But when I change the password to something else it works. What's goin on?? Jason. -- Jason Coo Computer Engineer, P.Eng. The Fluid Life Corporation 1-877-962-2400 jason@fluidlife.com

Hi, From v3.0.0 onwards the hash function implemented by Rsync was changed from MD4 to MD5 (http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/src/rsync-3.0.0-NEWS). My understanding is that MD5 is a more secure, slower version of MD4 but I am not convinced that the added security of MD5 would alone have merited the change from MD4 (particularly since MD4 is ~30% faster than MD5). I wonder if I am missing other

Hi to all. Im having a strange issue, but I could not fix and after days googling around doesnt took me anywhere better, so I come here trying to find the ultimate answer for this problem. I have installed on a Windows 2000 a printer (Samsung Sxc4x21) and Shared it. On other windows boxes I have no problem to use it, but when I try to connect using cups I can only find some administrative share

still trying to solve my domain-problems (from time to time I get 'domain controller cant be found' on a special sambaserver 2.2.3a) Why does samba complain about wrong password for user nobody ? I actually found "nobody" in smbpasswd, but I'm not sure if I put it in there and dont understand why nobody needs to be samba-user. imho nobody is the unix-account under which

Hi, The following lines in compat.c are rather imprudent: if (read_batch || write_batch) checksum_seed = 32761; else checksum_seed = time(NULL); write_int(f_out,checksum_seed); Setting checksum_seed to a constant in batch mode means block collisions are reproducible and predictable. Thus, some files will be permanently "unlucky" in batch mode and will

On 10/01/2015 03:57 PM, David Whitney wrote: > Hi mourik...are you saying these messages in the logs are new, as in > suddenly these messages are appearing? > > What version of Samba are you running? > We're on samba 4.2.4, sernet, on wheezy, AD. Running without any issues for more than a year. I have never noticed them before, and a quick search in the logs doesn't

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Aris Adamantiadis <aris at 0xbadc0de.be> wrote: [snip] > I've worked this week on an alternative key exchange mechanism, in > reaction to the whole NSA leaks and claims over cryptographic backdoors > and/or cracking advances. The key exchange is in my opinion the most > critical defense against passive eavesdropping attacks. > I believe

Hello All, Well, I've admitted defeat. I've installed Samba 2.2.3a on a Solaris 7 machine and am trying to connect to it from a Win2K SP2 PC. I am using encrypted passwords. The same user (darren) exists on the pc (called 'plm') and the samba server ('sparky2'). The password for this user is the same on the PC, and the /etc/shadow and /apps/samba/private/smbpasswd

I am the author of BackupPC (http://backuppc.sourceforge.net) and I am working on adding rsync support to BackupPC. I am implementing the server-side in perl, and the client will run vanilla rsync. (BTW, is there the protocol documented? I've answered all my questions by looking at the source, but it would be great to check against any docs.) I started with librsync 0.9.3 and the

On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:58 -0800, rsync2eran@tromer.org wrote: > A year ago we discussed the strength of the MD4 hash used by rsync and > librsync, and one of the points mentioned was that only collision > attacks are known on MD4. Could you please forward this into the bug tracker so it's not lost? -- Martin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

Respected R experts, I am trying to apply a user function that basically calls and applies the R loess function from stat package over each time series. I have a large matrix of size 21 X 9000000 and I need to apply the loess for each column and hence I have implemented this separate user function that applies loess over each column and I am calling this function foo as follows:

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:22:14PM -0800, Craig Barratt wrote: > And I have several things I would like to work on and submit: > > - Fix the MD4 block and file checksums to comply with the rfc > (currently MD4 is wrong for blocks of size 64*n, or files > longer than 512MB). > > - Adaptive first pass checksum lengths: use 3 or more bytes of the MD4 > block