IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
The acl_read.c code contains a special case to allow dirsync to
work-around having insufficient access rights. We had a concern that
the dirsync module could leak sensitive information for deleted objects.
This patch adds a test-case to prove whether or not this is happening.
The new test case is similar to the existing dirsync test except:
- We make the confidential attribute also preserve-on-delete, so it
hangs around for deleted objcts. Because the attributes now persist
across test case runs, I've used a different attribute to normal.
(Technically, the dirsync search expressions are now specific enough
that the regular attribute could be used, but it would make things
quite fragile if someone tried to add a new test case).
- To handle searching for deleted objects, the search expressions are
now more complicated. Currently dirsync adds an extra-filter to the
'!' searches to exclude deleted objects, i.e. samaccountname matches
the test-objects AND the object is not deleted. We now extend this to
include deleted objects with lastKnownParent equal to the test OU.
The search expression matches either case so that we can use the same
expression throughout the test (regardless of whether the object is
deleted yet or not).
This test proves that the dirsync corner-case does not actually leak
sensitive information on Samba. This is due to a bug in the dirsync
code - when the buggy line is removed, this new test promptly fails.
Test also passes against Windows.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
A user that doesn't have access to view an attribute can still guess the
attribute's value via repeated LDAP searches. This affects confidential
attributes, as well as ACLs applied to an object/attribute to deny
access.
Currently the code will hide objects if the attribute filter contains an
attribute they are not authorized to see. However, the code still
returns objects as results if confidential attribute is in the search
expression itself, but not in the attribute filter.
To fix this problem we have to check the access rights on the attributes
in the search-tree, as well as the attributes returned in the message.
Points of note:
- I've preserved the existing dirsync logic (the dirsync module code
suppresses the result as long as the replPropertyMetaData attribute is
removed). However, there doesn't appear to be any test that highlights
that this functionality is required for dirsync.
- To avoid this fix breaking the acl.py tests, we need to still permit
searches like 'objectClass=*', even though we don't have Read Property
access rights for the objectClass attribute. The logic that Windows
uses does not appear to be clearly documented, so I've made a best
guess that seems to mirror Windows behaviour.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
This better reflects the special case we're making for dirsync, and gets
rid of a 'if-else' clause.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Flip the dirsync check (to avoid a double negative), and use a helper
boolean variable.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
So we can re-use the same logic laster for checking the search-ops.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
It is perfectly legal to search LDAP for an attribute that is not part
of the schema. That part of the query should simply not match.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Currently Samba is a bit disclosive with LDB_OP_PRESENT (i.e.
attribute=*) searches compared to Windows.
All the acl.py tests are based on objectClass=* searches, where Windows
will happily tell a user about objects they have List Contents rights,
but not Read Property rights for. However, if you change the attribute
being searched for, suddenly the objects are no longer visible on
Windows (whereas they are on Samba).
This is a problem, because Samba can tell you about which objects have
confidential attributes, which in itself could be disclosive.
This patch adds a acl.py test-case that highlights this behaviour. The
test passes against Windows but fails against Samba.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Adds tests that assert that a confidential attribute cannot be guessed
by an unprivileged user through wildcard DB searches.
The tests basically consist of a set of DB searches/assertions that
get run for:
- basic searches against a confidential attribute
- confidential attributes that get overridden by giving access to the
user via an ACE (run against a variety of ACEs)
- protecting a non-confidential attribute via an ACL that denies read-
access (run against a variety of ACEs)
- querying confidential attributes via the dirsync controls
These tests all pass when run against a Windows Dc and all fail against
a Samba DC.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
This will send an unfixed smbd into the
SMB_ASSERT(op->request_count > 0);
in smbd_smb2_request_reply_update_counts
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Apr 12 14:38:39 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
(cherry picked from commit 40edd1bc27)
Autobuild-User(v4-6-test): Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(v4-6-test): Thu Apr 12 21:56:31 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
This is not strictly needed to fig bug 13272, but it makes sense to also
fix this while fixing the overall ACL checking logic.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
This is used to pass information about which password change operation (change
or reset) the acl module validated, down to the password_hash module.
It's very important that both modules treat the request identical.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Will be used to pass "user password change" vs "password reset" from the
ACL to the password_hash module, ensuring both modules treat the request
identical.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
This is needed, because a later commit will let the acl module add a
control to the change request msg and we must ensure that this is only
done once.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
This change ensures we correctly treat the following LDIF
dn: cn=testuser,cn=users,...
changetype: modify
delete: userPassword
add: userPassword
userPassword: thatsAcomplPASS1
as a password reset. Because delete and add element counts are both
one, the ACL module wrongly treated this as a password change
request.
For a password change we need at least one value to delete and one value
to add. This patch ensures we correctly check attributes and their
values.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Note that the request using the clearTextPassword attribute for the
password change is already correctly rejected by the server.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
We run into an assert when the csn wraps
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Sun Jan 14 14:47:15 CET 2018 on sn-devel-144
(cherry picked from commit 0abe16a534)
This demonstrates the interaction of NT_STATUS_NETWORK_SESSION_EXPIRED
and various SMB2 opcodes.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13197
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
This reverts commit 678a7a32473b1f64421cd905b7d535878eb11cab.
Autobuild-User(v4-6-test): Karolin Seeger <kseeger@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(v4-6-test): Wed Feb 21 15:14:49 CET 2018 on sn-devel-144
Otherwise shutdown can hang
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13240
Signed-off-by: Björn Baumbach <bb@sernet.de>
(similar to commit 361ea74357)
Autobuild-User(v4-6-test): Karolin Seeger <kseeger@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(v4-6-test): Tue Feb 20 17:03:44 CET 2018 on sn-devel-144
Currently the value is the same anyway as the session key is always of the
same type as server key up to now, but that will change shortly.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13135
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
We need the target service without realm, but the proxy services with realm.
I have a domain with an w2008r2 server and a samba and now both generate
the same S4U_DELEGATION_INFO.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13133
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
This test more operations in the zeroed out FinderInfo test, ensuring
after zeroing out FinderInfo, operations on the filehandle still work
and that enumerating streams doesn't return the stream anymore.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13181
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
(backported from commit df31e94eb6)
Thanks to Doug Nazar <nazard@nazar.ca> for spotting this!
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12986
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
(cherry picked from heimdal commit a79b59ba27070a015479e8d981b7e685dbe34310)
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
(cherry picked from commit 183e5d1e3d)
Autobuild-User(v4-6-test): Karolin Seeger <kseeger@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(v4-6-test): Sun Dec 24 01:15:07 CET 2017 on sn-devel-144
