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.
Not only should it not be possible to add a servicePrincipalName that
is already present in the domain, it should not be possible to add one
that is implied by an entry in sPNMappings, unless the user is adding
an alias to another SPN and has rights to alter that one.
For example, with the default sPNMappings, cifs/ is an alias pointing to
host/, meaning if there is no cifs/example.com SPN, the host/example.com
one will be used instead. A user can add the cifs/example.com SPN only
if they can also change the host/example.com one (because adding the
cifs/ effectively changes the host/). The reverse is refused in all cases,
unless they happen to be on the same object. That is, if there is a
cifs/example.com SPN, there is no way to add host/example.com elsewhere.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This only for the real account name, not the account name implicit in
a UPN. It doesn't matter if a UPN implies an illegal sAMAccountName,
since that is not going to conflict with a real one.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We already know duplicate sAMAccountNames and UserPrincipalNames are bad,
but we also have to check against the values these imply in each other.
For example, imagine users with SAM account names "Alice" and "Bob" in
the realm "example.com". If they do not have explicit UPNs, by the logic
of MS-ADTS 5.1.1.1.1 they use the implict UPNs "alice@example.com" and
"bob@example.com", respectively. If Bob's UPN gets set to
"alice@example.com", it will clash with Alice's implicit one.
Therefore we refuse to allow a UPN that implies an existing SAM account
name and vice versa.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Because the sam account name + the dns host name is used as the
default user principal name, we need to check for collisions between
these. Fixes are coming in upcoming patches.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We need to have the SPNs there before someone else nabs them, which
makes the re-provisioned old releases different from the reference
versions that we keep for this comparison.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, leaving SPNs unclaimed is
dangerous, as someone else could grab them first. Secondly, in some
circumstances (self join) we try to add a DNS/ SPN a little bit later
in provision. Under the rules we are introducing for CVE-2020-25722,
this will make our later attempts to add HOST/ fail.
This causes a few errors in samba4.blackbox.dbcheck.* tests, which
assert that revivified old domains match stored reference versions.
Now they don't, because they have servicePrincipalNames.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14564
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Thankfully we are aleady in a loop over all the message elements in
acl_modify() so this is an easy and safe change to make.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14876
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Validate Writes and Control Access Rights only grant access if the
object is of the type listed in the Right's appliesTo attribute. For
example, even though a Validated-SPN access may be granted to a user
object in the SD, it should only pass if the object is of class
computer This patch enforces the appliesTo attribute classes for
access checks from within the ldb stack.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14832
Signed-off-by: Nadezhda Ivanova <nivanova@symas.com>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Validate Writes and Control Access Rights should only grant access if the
object is of the type listed in the Right's appliesTo attribute.
Tests to verify this behavior
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14832
Signed-off-by: Nadezhda Ivanova <nivanova@symas.com>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
The 'ktest' environment was/is designed to test kerberos in an active
directory member setup. It was created at a time we wanted to test
smbd/winbindd with kerberos without having the source4 ad dc available.
This still applies to testing the build with system krb5 libraries
but without relying on a running ad dc.
As a domain member setup requires a running winbindd, we should test it
that way, in order to reflect a valid setup.
As a side effect it provides a way to demonstrate that we can accept
smb connections authenticated via kerberos, but no connection to
a domain controller! In order get this working offline, we need an
idmap backend with ID_TYPE_BOTH support, so we use 'autorid', which
should be the default choice.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14646
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
AD domains always provide a PAC unless UF_NO_AUTH_DATA_REQUIRED is set
on the service account, which can only be explicitly configured,
but that's an invalid configuration!
We still try to support standalone servers in an MIT realm,
as legacy setup.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14801
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
[jsutton@samba.org Removed knownfail entries]
So far we tried getpwnam("DOMAIN\account") first and
always did a fallback to getpwnam("account") completely
ignoring the domain part, this just causes problems
as we mix "DOMAIN1\account", "DOMAIN2\account",
and "account"!
As we require a running winbindd for domain member setups
we should no longer do a fallback to just "account" for
users served by winbindd!
For users of the local SAM don't use this code path,
as check_sam_security() doesn't call check_account().
The only case where smb_getpwnam("account") happens is
when map_username() via ("username map [script]") mapped
"DOMAIN\account" to something without '\', but that is
explicitly desired by the admin.
Note: use 'git show -w'
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14801
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Pair-Programmed-With: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This environment creates an AD member that doesn't have
'nss_winbind' configured, while winbindd is still started.
For testing we map a DOMAIN\root user to the local root
account and unix token of the local root user.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14801
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14556
Pair-Programmed-With: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Samuel Cabrero <scabrero@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This new restriction breaks a large number of assumptions in the tests, like
that you can remove some UF_ flags, because it turns out doing so will
make the 'computer' a 'user' again, and this will fail.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
This favors a test that confirms we got an error over getting exactly
the right error, at least for now.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Objects of objectclass computer are computers by default now and this changes
the sAMAccountType and primaryGroupID as well as userAccountControl
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
We now enforce that a trust account must be a user.
These can not be added over LDAP anyway, and our C
code in the RPC server gets this right in any case.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
The parts that create and delete a single object can be
safely split out into an individual test.
At this point the parts that fail against Windows 2019 are:
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_computer_add_normal [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_computer_modify [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_user_add_0_uac [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_user_add_normal [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
error: __main__.SamTests.test_userAccountControl_user_modify [
_ldb.LdbError: (53, 'LDAP error 53 LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM - <0000052D: SvcErr: DSID-031A1236, problem 5003 (WILL_NOT_PERFORM), data 0\n> <>')
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
