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.
This will reduce the noise from merges of the rest of the
libcli/security code, without this commit changing what code
is actually used.
This includes (along with other security headers) dom_sid.h and
security_token.h
Andrew Bartlett
Autobuild-User: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date: Tue Oct 12 05:54:10 UTC 2010 on sn-devel-104
This matches the structure that new code is being written to,
and removes one more of the old-style named structures, and
the need to know that is is just an alias for struct dom_sid.
Andrew Bartlett
Signed-off-by: Günther Deschner <gd@samba.org>
"I believe I have found two bugs in the 3.2 code and one bug that
carried on to the 3.3 branch. In the 3.2 code, everything is
located in the utils/net_rpc_samsync.c file. What I believe is the
first problem is that fetch_database() is calling
samsync_fix_delta_array() with rid_crypt set to true, which means
the password hashes are unencrypted from the RID encryption.
However, I believe this call is redundant, and the corresponding
call for samdump has rid_crypt set to false. So I think the
rid_crypt param should be false in fetch_database().
If you follow the code, it makes its way to sam_account_from_delta()
where the password hashes are decrypted a second time by calling
sam_pwd_hash(). I believe this is what is scrambling my passwords.
These methods were refactored somewhere in the 3.3 branch. Now the
net_rpc_samsync.c class calls rpc_vampire_internals, which calls
libnet/libnet_samsync.c, which calls samsync_fix_delta_array() with
rid_crypt always set to false. I think that's correct. But the
second bug has carried through in the sam_account_from_delta()
function:
208 if (memcmp(r->ntpassword.hash, zero_buf, 16) != 0) {
209 sam_pwd_hash(r->rid, r->ntpassword.hash, lm_passwd, 0);
210 pdb_set_lanman_passwd(account, lm_passwd, PDB_CHANGED);
211 }
212
213 if (memcmp(r->lmpassword.hash, zero_buf, 16) != 0) {
214 sam_pwd_hash(r->rid, r->lmpassword.hash, nt_passwd, 0);
215 pdb_set_nt_passwd(account, nt_passwd, PDB_CHANGED);
If you look closely you'll see that the nt hash is going into the
lm_passwd variable and the decrypted value is being set in the lanman
hash, and the lanman hash is being decrypted and put into the nt hash
field. So the LanMan and NT hashes look like they're being put in
the opposite fields."
Fix this by removing the rid_crypt parameter.
Jeremy.
