similar to: Bitlocker

Am 17.07.19 um 11:10 schrieb Rowland penny via samba: >> > I thought Samba always used schema version 47, so you should have the > objectclass & attributes in AD, this is the ldif for the objectclass: > > cn: ms-FVE-RecoveryInformation > ldapDisplayName: msFVE-RecoveryInformation > governsId: 1.2.840.113556.1.5.253 > objectClassCategory: 1 > rdnAttId: cn >

On 17/07/2019 09:50, Christian Naumer via samba wrote: > 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: > >

>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

>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

Hi There seems to be a discrepancy in the s4 schema concerning security groups. Domain Users comes with gidNumber: 100. This is however contrary to what the schema allows. You can show this as follows: Create a new group. samba-tool group add mygroup. Use phpldapadmin to add the gidNumber attribute. There is an error because gidNumber is provided by the posixGroup class and that objectclass is

Am 17.07.19 um 12:53 schrieb Joachim Lindenberg: >> 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. As you can see the tap is there. Does a computer showing some info here have "ms-FVE-RecoveryInformation" in the

HOn Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:29:41 +0000 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 05:18:20 +0100 > Franta Hanzlík <franta at hanzlici.cz> wrote: > > > Hi Tim and Rowland, thanks for Your support! > > I was thinking about e.g. Python 2.7.15 compatibility (as newer Samba > > versions require Python3), but You are right, here

Are use using zarafaAccount=1 withing the search filters? I use this things like this : (&(objectClass=person)(zarafaAccount=1)(|(mail=%s)(otherMailbox=%s))) Or for groups. (&(objectclass=group)(zarafaAccount=1)(|(mail=%s)(otherMailbox=%s))) That helps a lot. ! If you switch to kopano beware to change the SCHEMA and filters zarafaAccount changed to kopanoAccount Greetz. Louis

Hi Tim and Rowland, thanks for Your support! I was thinking about e.g. Python 2.7.15 compatibility (as newer Samba versions require Python3), but You are right, here in DB can be problem - first Samba AD DC was created by migrating Samba3 NT4 domain to Samba4 AD cca week ago (using 'samba-tool domain classicupgrade ...', according to Samba Wiki): On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:14:02 +1300 Tim

Can you tell more about your setup? Is zarafa and samba on the same server for example. Which MTA are you using postfix/exim?   My top was about 150 users, and all my printers are connected also so about 200 devices do ldap searches. but my setup is split over 10+ servers ( 2 are AD DC )   So best is to tell what you can about your setup, anonimize if needed.   Greetz,   Louis  

On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 10:43 +0200, Gaetan SLONGO via samba wrote: > Zarafa is not on the same server as Samba  > > We only have 2 AD/DC Samba 4.5 (CentOS 7) and we put required indexes > on LDAP .  > > Arround 1000 mailboxes but not all are simultaneously in use (approx > 1/3 in use).  > MTA is postfix (and is still connected to Samba AD, this one is not > causing the

Mandi! Rowland Penny via samba In chel di` si favelave... > S-1-5-21-160080369-3601385002-3131615632-1314 Bingo! Exactly the 'Restricted' group that own the users i use for generico LDAP access! I really think that we have found the trouble! Now... how can i fix it? ;-) And... why that vaule get not propagated?! Thanks. -- dott. Marco Gaiarin GNUPG Key ID: 240A3D66

Hi, A while ago I successfully set permissions on a section of my LDAP / AD tree, using either ADUC or ADSIEDIT (I forget which). These permissions allowed my own user to access this section of the tree; I removed permissions for 'Domain Admins' etc. to ensure that others would not be able to view or change the data - this has worked great for many months. I have just tried to add a new

Mandi! Rowland Penny via samba In chel di` si favelave... > Whilst there are attributes that do not get replicated between DC's, > the majority are, so each DC should allow the same access. > Do you have access to the DC ? > Can you run the search locally ? Sure! As just stated, local access (via ldbsearch against the local SAM) works as expected: root at vdcpp1:~# ldbsearch

I've been been trying to investigate this for sometime now, hence I came to the experts :) I have rejoined all my DC's with new names, see below. ;; ANSWER SECTION: <domain>.corp. 3600 IN NS psad101zatcrh.<domain>.corp. -> New rebuild, new hostname, RHEL6 to RHEL7 upgrade <domain>.corp. 3600 IN NS prdc001zafsrh.<domain>.corp. -> New

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 05:18:20 +0100 Franta Hanzlík <franta at hanzlici.cz> wrote: > Hi Tim and Rowland, thanks for Your support! > I was thinking about e.g. Python 2.7.15 compatibility (as newer Samba > versions require Python3), but You are right, here in DB can be > problem > - first Samba AD DC was created by migrating Samba3 NT4 domain to > Samba4 AD cca week ago

Dear users, We are facing to a big latency issue regarding the LDAP Server (both encrypted & plain). We have a Zarafa mail server which makes a lot of queries and puts a samba process to 100% usage. This latency makes the mail server unusable.. The mail server was previously on OpenLDAP and there was not performance issues. A simple LDAP query can take up to 25 sec to perform !! We

No, you have to do that manualy, or look the the samba4 ADS script for kopano ( or zarafa ) But I mostly follow the documentation.   And when i run : time ldbsearch -H /var/lib/samba/private/sam.ldb -s base -b @INDEXLIST .... real    0m0.230s user    0m0.184s sys     0m0.044s   so if yours take more that 20 sec there is something very wrong. I suggest check you samba AD database and

Zarafa is not on the same server as Samba We only have 2 AD/DC Samba 4.5 (CentOS 7) and we put required indexes on LDAP . Arround 1000 mailboxes but not all are simultaneously in use (approx 1/3 in use). MTA is postfix (and is still connected to Samba AD, this one is not causing the issue). As a workarround, we currently deployed a synchronization connector from AD to OpenLDAP. It solves the

Thank you for your message Andrew. Then .. Waiting for this improvement... :-) Indexes seem correct to me. But I'm not sure at 100% because I cannot find clear explanation regarding the searchFlags attribute value .. 1, 2, ... ? Maybe you have one ? Thanks ! ----- Mail original ----- De: "Andrew Bartlett" <abartlet at samba.org> À: "Gaetan SLONGO" <gslongo