similar to: samba4 windows 10 pro bitlocker key managment

On 23/12/15 02:26, yabko wrote: > hi > > did anyone successfully implemented bitlocker key management in samba4 ad? > searching web i can find one hit on this > > http://kidcartouche.blogspot.com/2013/03/bitlocker-drive-encryption-and-samba4.html > > i'm on 4.3.3. do i still need to import the bitlocker schema? Never attempted this, but on link you provided is this:

Not sure what Bitlocker integration you are referring to. Saving bitlocker recovery keys does work for me with schema version 47. Regards, Joachim -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: samba <samba-bounces at lists.samba.org> Im Auftrag von Paul Littlefield via samba Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. M?rz 2024 18:14 An: samba at lists.samba.org Betreff: Re: [Samba] Raise Domain Level, Forest Level

On 22/03/2024 09:20, Joachim Lindenberg via samba wrote: > Not sure what Bitlocker integration you are referring to. Saving > bitlocker recovery keys does work for me with schema version 47. > Regards, Joachim We have tried a few times to use our existing schema version 47 and it's coming up with this error:- https://www.itdroplets.com/bitlocker-error-0x80005000/ A screenshot is

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 05:02:57PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > Basically what I did was create a small disk, create one partition > over the whole disk, then cryptsetup luksFormat the partition, open > it and format it with a filesystem (without any LVM). That is one > of the things you were adding support for, but it is not limited to > Windows Bitlocker setup, it can just

For links to the original patch series, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808977#c8 The original feedback was that ignoring errors from guestfs_luks_uuid would ignore legitimate errors from non-BitLocker disks, so I have modified this series so that errors are only ignored in the BitLocker case. As noted in the 4th patch there is no actual error in the BitLocker case, cryptsetup

On 18/03/2024 15:44, Paul Littlefield via samba wrote: > > I would like to add BitLocker integration to the three DCs we have running 4.15.13 on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS. > > The DC has been around a while and is currently on Schema version 47 and Domain level 2008_R2. > > Can I confirm that the procedure to upgrade the three DCs is as follows:- > > 1) backup > 2) upgrade

Hello; I use Bitlocker on my machines and I notice that when I am in my PXE Menu and I select "Boot to Local Hard Drive" it continues on then bitlockers. I am assuming that the syslinux is still in memory, bitlocker is being triggered because of the change. I need a solution to overcome this. I cannot remove bitlocker from the machines. Any and all help is appreciated. Matt

>yes we installed this. And see nothing there. Do you have this running? Yes, I do. You can tell it is installed properly by looking at the additional tab "Bitlocker Recovery" on computers? properties. Joachim

Hi, What do I need to get BitLocker integration with AD on Samba 4? Paul

On 20-03-2024 18:14, Paul Littlefield via samba wrote: > On 18/03/2024 15:44, Paul Littlefield via samba wrote: >> >> I would like to add BitLocker integration to the three DCs we have >> running 4.15.13 on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS. >> >> The DC has been around a while and is currently on Schema version 47 >> and Domain level 2008_R2. >> >> Can I

Label is OS and I believe there are all booting MBR. Is there a way to clear the memory then continue loading ? or rebooting the machine from the menu. I have tried that reboot.c32 and cannot get it to reboot the machine. Matt -----Original Message----- From: Gene Cumm [mailto:gene.cumm at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:04 PM To: Taylor Jr, Matthew [U.S. Computer Corp] Cc:

Hi, I am trying to implement bitlocker key management in samba4 ad. This has been posted a view times before: https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2015-December/196771.html https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2018-July/217168.html According to Andrew and this: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/orphan-topics/ws.10/cc722309(v=ws.10) the Schema should be ready for this.

Support transparent decryption/inspection of Windows guests encrypted with BitLocker encryption. This won't make much sense without the associated libguestfs patches which I will post momentarily. (Submodules, ho hum) Rich.

Any deviation from the expected boot process will prevent BitLocker from accessing the volume key in the TPM. One reason this behavior exists is to prevent malicious code from being loaded (such as via booting first to CD / USB / PXE, loading malware, and then continuing to boot to Windows). So what's happening here is the deviation from firmware -> PXE -> HDD is detected and the volume

>As you can see the tap is there. Does a computer showing some info here have "ms-FVE-RecoveryInformation" in the "Attribut-Editor"? No, bitlocker keys are a different entities and not an attribute. It is only the UI that shows the like attributes. Regards, Joachim

That's a great question, actually, I should have remembered to mention that! You can control what factors are used for the TPM's integrity check to release the bitlocker key on boot. Depending on whether your on a BIOS or EFI machine, there are slight differences, but definitely controllable by group policy. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee706521(v=ws.10).aspx#BKMK_depopt3 I

These commits, along with the associated changes to common: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-March/msg00286.html support the transparent decryption and inspection of Windows guests encrypted with BitLocker encryption. To do the BitLocker decryption requires cryptsetup 2.3.0 (although cryptsetup 2.3 is not required for existing LUKS use). It also requires a new-ish Linux kernel, I

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 04:33:53PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 05:02:57PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: >> Basically what I did was create a small disk, create one partition >> over the whole disk, then cryptsetup luksFormat the partition, open >> it and format it with a filesystem (without any LVM). That is one >> of the things you were

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:06:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:25:20PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:41:20AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >For BitLocker disks cryptsetup does not (yet? ever?) support reading >> >UUIDs and this function will fail. This does not matter here so just >> >ignore

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:41:20AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >For BitLocker disks cryptsetup does not (yet? ever?) support reading >UUIDs and this function will fail. This does not matter here so just >ignore the error. > >Note there is no error message, cryptsetup simply returns with a bad >exit code: > >><rescue> cryptsetup luksUUID /dev/sda2