similar to: Hardened UNC Paths, Badlock, encryption defaults?

Hai, Thanks for that link, that is very usefull. Only after reading it i see its missing a very important part. This opens a security leak. See link ( dated in : Last Updated: Apr 15, 2015 ) https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/3000483/ms15-011-vulnerability-in-group-policy-could-allow-remote-code-executi The examples shown there. \\<Server>\<Share> - Needs to be

Am 14.04.2016 um 11:33 schrieb lejeczek: > I'm guessing I'm missing some specifics needed for win10 - what are > those I wonder. Is your Samba a NT4-style PDC? You are using Samba 3, I'm using Samba 4. Anyway: In my experiments I also had to set an additional regpatch for Win10 and a Samba 4.3.x NT4-style domain for logon scripts - otherwise the logon scripts are not

Yes, you correct, you wasted time on this.. Read also, this will give more insight. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4034314/smbv1-is-not-installed-by-default-in-windows Greetz, Louis > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens > Marco Shmerykowsky PE via samba > Verzonden: dinsdag 29 mei 2018 19:12 > Aan: samba

I've been running Samba 4 in NT4 Domain mode for a few years, and it's been working fine with Windows 7 PCs. I now need to join a new Windows 10 PC to the domain, but I'm not having any success! When I try to join the domain, the Windows 10 PC says "An Active Directory Domain Controller could not be contacted...." I've tried a few things, including:- Setting

try these settings for your GPO. Solution: GPEDIT.MSC -> Computer -> Administrative templates -> Network -> Networkprovider -> Hardened UNC Paths Added \\foo.lan\netlogon and Value: RequireMutualAuthentication=0,RequireIntegrity=0,RequirePrivacy=0 add \\foo\netlogon also Greetz, Louis >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at

He.. im working also... ;-)   3 phone calls.. main boss in my office mous died... , answering you e-mail and installing windows pc. Working on support tickets... pff.. to much... at once..   And you cant access the server on DC3 at all with   \\dc3.domain.tld\sysvol   Or only \\dc3.domain.tld   Then check you share rights.   And/or apply ( but should not be needed if you use

Make sure you use the new GPO policies. Looks like the problem "[Samba] Windows 10 in Samba 3 domain: netlogon share access denied" Its not only for windows 10, also 7 and 8.x Solution: GPEDIT.MSC -> Computer -> Administrative templates -> Network -> Networkprovider -> Hardened UNC Paths Added \\foo.lan\netlogon and Value:

Upgrading Win7-32 (connected to Samba as NT-PDC) to Win10 requires - disable HardenedUncPaths (MutualAuth & Integrity) - install NTVDM - enable LegacyConsole otherwise the logon-script in Netlogon does not run, even if samba.cnf contains "server max level = NT1" Is Samba as NT-PDC supposed to handle HardenedUncPaths? Did I miss that I should have enabled that somehow in smb.conf?

The issue does not seem to be connected to SMB1. It can be installed and it still won't authenticate. Something has been changed to force authentication to AD/DNS either solely or as a first step. The translation of the netbios name never happens even if the computer can resolve the name. Given that the authentication thru netbios resolution seems to get grandfathered in provided the domain

>> 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 prior to SMB3 (which comes with windows 8).

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 > > imply an

[ Rowland, i know, i need to upgrade. ;-) ] Some month ago, with a relative big bunch of fix&tweaks, i was able to put a Win10 1903 client in join to a 'NT mode' Samba domain. Now i'm trying to do the same with a 1909 version; all seems to work as before, BUT netlogon script (defined in smb.conf with: logon script = startup.bat ) simply seems does not run. No log event in

>* Am 13.04.2016 um 07:51 schrieb Mogens Kjaer <mk at lemo.dk <https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos>>: *> >* 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

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

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.

Hi Guys, I am trying to connect Windows 10 to Samba domain controller. Windows 10 fails to get GPO’s because it can’t access SysVol with permissions. The domain Windows 10 is going through for SysVol would be \\example.com\SysVol when I navigate to this as Admin it does not let me go with credentials however if I use the servers hostname \\voyager\Sysvol I can access the directory. We have a

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

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 for smb.conf and some others more restrict

Hi, Finally, I have launched "yum downgrade samba*" too for best effort. I am waiting for news until my samba 4 migration. AC-GUYANE <mailto:Johan.Glenac at ac-guyane.fr> *Johan GLENAC* *DSI* Administrateur Système, Réseaux et Télécom *TROUBIRAN :* Route de Baduel - BP 6011 97306 Cayenne *Tél. :* +594 (0) 594 27 22 08 *Fax :* +594 (0) 594 27 22 20 Rectorat - Académie de la

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 prior to SMB3 (which comes with windows 8). B - According to what I