similar to: BUILTIN\Administrators - failed to call wbcSidToUid: WBC_ERR_DOMAIN_NOT_FOUND

Hello everyone. I'm trying to fix sysvol rights, because i see errors in output of /usr/bin/samba-tool ntacl sysvolcheck ERROR(<class 'samba.provision.ProvisioningError'>): uncaught exception - ProvisioningError: DB ACL on GPO directory /var/lib/samba/sysvol/samdom.svmetal.cz/Policies/{6AC1786C-016F-11D2-945F-00C04FB984F9}

Hai, I leave the advice about the uid/gid numbering to Rowland, i can not give a good advice on that. The script was made in such a way that it should not matter what uid/gids are where used. The script looks them up for you, but it must be error free so we are sure what is set is correct. If you look in the script, you see the four SID. DC_SERVER_OPERATORS="S-1-5-32-549"

To Rowland: > This was perfectly common, nobody thought this would ever be a problem,mainly because you had to have a user or group in /etc/passwd> or /etc/group mapped to a Samba. Now with AD, you do not need a user or group in /etc/passwd or /etc/group, so any user or group that uses the RID as a Unix ID is> probably too low and is denying the use of any local Unix users Yes, but where

Well, we are getting somewere...;) >It is probably 'greyed' out because no Windows tools use it or will add it. You will probably need to use Unix tools (ldb or ldap) to remove>them, but you can if you so wish ignore them. What you should never do is to rely on them being there, because they may or may not be there.Ok, I'll let it be there> You need to remove the gidNumber

Thank you very much for clarifying the ID mapping "magic";) > You do not need 'posixgroup', it is an auxiliary objectclass of group, you can add any of the rfc2307 attributes without it. Well, is there any option to remove it? Because "posixgroup" is on every group that was migrated from Samba 3. And I cannot edit this attribute in ADUC (delete button is grayed).

>When you provision a new domain, it is set 3000000, but, seemingly, when you run the classicupgrade it gets sets to a lower number (never actually run a classicupgrade) based on what is in your old domain. > Not sure what to suggest here, do you feel up to sending me (offlist) a copy of your idmap.ldb ? > >Rowland Thank you again, Rowland, for your time. I think that different ID

Rowland, Are (one) these not an option for him to correct this? --allocate-uid Get a new UID out of idmap --allocate-gid Get a new GID out of idmap --set-uid-mapping=UID,SID Create or modify uid to sid mapping in idmap --set-gid-mapping=GID,SID Create or modify gid

> It should work ;-) > Can you post your smb.conf and /etc/named.conf files > Rowland Hello Rowland. Of course I can: cat /etc/samba/smb.conf # Global parameters [global] workgroup = SVMETAL realm = samdom.svmetal.cz netbios name = DC01 server services = -dns server role = active directory domain controller idmap_ldb:use rfc2307 = yes allow dns updates =

Hello, this is a Samba AD Domain upgraded from Samba 3.x with classicupgrade. Debian 9.4 Samba: 4.7.6 (packages from tranquil.it) # cat /etc/samba/smb.conf [global] netbios name = DC1 realm = IWW.LAN server role = active directory domain controller workgroup = IWW idmap_ldb:use rfc2307 = yes dns forwarder = 172.16.1.12 dsdb:schema update

Hello everyone. In our company we use Samba 4 for about 3 years (classic upgraded from Samba 3.5 + LDAP to Sernet Samba 4.2). We used CentOS 6 for domain controllers and with Bind bundled in this distro was impossible to use dynamic DNS updates. And because I don't like using compiled SW on production servers, we used Samba internal DNS, which worked well (dynamic updates). With one non

Hello, guys. I?d like to upgrade our Samba 4.11 AD to 4.12. In release notes, REMOVED FEATURES, I see this: ?Retiring DES encryption types in Kerberos. ------------------------------------------ With this release, support for DES encryption types has been removed from Samba, and setting DES_ONLY flag for an account will cause Kerberos authentication to fail for that account (see RFC-6649).? In

Hi all, Some (then all) of our workstations were complaining about incorrect ACLs on GPOs and were unable to read the gpt.ini to apply the GPOs. So I did a sysvolcheck and sure enough I'd lost the ACLs when I moved our sysvol share to a new location on the server (whoops, mea culpa). I ran a sysvolreset which took a long time to return (some 5 minutes, please see my post on slow winbind

Hai, ? im running samba 4.2.2 sernet on debian. ? when i run : samba-tool gpo aclcheck -UAdministrator ? im getting : ERROR: Invalid GPO ACL O:DAG:DAD:PAI(A;OICI;0x001f01ff;;;DA)(A;OICI;0x001f01ff;;;EA)(A;OICIIO;0x001f01ff;;;CO)(A;OICI;0x001f01ff;;;DA)(A;OICI;0x001f01ff;;;SY)(A;OICI;0x001200a9;;;AU)(A;OICI;0x001200a9;;;ED) and it tells me it should be O:DAG:DAD:P?

Hi guys! I´m experiencing a problem with samba 4 policies and acl and i don´t known how it starded to do. Some problems like copy Policies, edit them, etc. It seems like permissions, but i´ve checked the list and can´t find a solution. Here are some outputs that i hope can help to understand: # Sysvol permissions: drwxrwxrwx+ 3 root DOMAIN\domain admins 4096 Mar 7 12:17 sysvol #

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 3:31 PM Rowland penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > OK, if you look at the end of the permissions, there is a '+' sign, this > shows that extended acls set, to see these: > > getfacl /usr/local/samba/var/locks/sysvol The difference in acls is that the non-working domain includes: user:3000001:r-x user:3000002:rwx user:3000003:r-x

Hi! I executed the command "samba-tool ntacl sysvolcheck" on a DC and I got the following I pasted below. The first DC was provisioned migrating from a samba NT4 PDC with an LDAP backend using the classic upgrade procedure. I haven't detected any problem but I wanted to make sure there isn't any problem I might not be seeing yet. ERROR(<class

Samba 4.4.2 I was doing some maintenance work and I noticed that sysvolcheck gave some error. I ran "samba-tool ntacl sysvolreset". Running sysvolcheck again still gives errors. I tried with several sysvol backups and the result is always the same. The affected policies are always "Default Domain Policy" and "Default Domain Controllers Policy". These policies

For completeness: The existing GPO: # samba-tool ntacl get --as-sddl \{07AF723D-5FFD-4807-B3C6-DFCE911B922A\}/ O:DAG:DAD:P(A;OICI;0x001f01ff;;;DA)(A;OICI;0x001f01ff;;;EA)(A;OICIIO;0x001f01ff;;;CO)(A;OICI;0x001f01ff;;;DA)(A;OICI;0x001f01ff;;;SY)(A;OICI;0x001200a9;;;AU)(A;OICI;0x001200a9;;;ED) The newly created GPO: # samba-tool ntacl get --as-sddl \{0C0B713E-EE65-4ACE-88AE-25125E2AAE00\}/

Dear All, I've recently upgrade from samba 4.1.x to samba 4.2.14 and found that GPO are having issue Specifically when I'm adding new using they *never *got the gpupdate success fully. When I run samba-tool ntacl sysvolcheck or samba-tool ntacl sysvolreset But don't seem to got it fix.. Any suggestion? Thank in advance. #samba-tool ntacl sysvolcheck Processing section

> You could try using a script Louis wrote, see here: > https://github.com/thctlo/samba4/blob/master/samba-check-set-sysvol.sh > > The 'idmap config' lines are nothing to worry about, you cannot set them on a DC, but, for some reason, testparm etc warns about > them. > > Rowland > Sorry, I should have said - I ran louis' script and set the acl's according