On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 07:40 -0700, Richard Guthrie wrote: > Andrew, > > The trace you sent previously lines up with expected behavior the > documentation defines (This was also verified with a review of the > code also). You can see starting with packet 530 that the client > tells the server that it does support signing but the server responds > in packet 534 that it does not. From there in frames 535-538 show the > client and server not using header signing for the remainder of the > conversation which is in line with the documentation. We do see the > client and server encrypting the body of the request as per the > authentication level being set to Privacy. > > Can you send a capture that exhibits the behavior you describe with > NTLMv2 as well as clarify your comments about behavior you have seen > in the past? Basically I need as much information as you can provide > on the behavior you have experienced to help understand the problem. > This would help to isolate the behavior you are seeing and complete > additional analysis as required.
We seem to have crossed threads here (see subject...). Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
