Hi Obaid
Some new information relevant to this issue has just been received by me. Please disregard my previous post to let me digest this new inconsistency in the documentation before i follow up. Please leave the case open until I have investigated. regards ronnie sahlberg On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:55 AM, ronnie sahlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Obaid, > Since I was the originator for this request, > If you have looked but not found any indication that there are any > additional sid types than those listed > I assume that SidTypeComputer = 9 (or something similar) must be a > mistake in the way that these things were discovered previously in > samba or wireshark. > > > You can close this issue as far as I am concerned. > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Obaid Farooqi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Andrew: >> I tried to dig this up but the scope of your question is currently just too >> broad. It would help greatly if you can give a little more information about >> the scenario in which you saw this enum. Is there any additional information >> that you or another member of Samba can recall that will help reduce the >> breadth of the scope? Even a timeframe that the scenario was experienced may >> prove to be useful. >> >> Thanks >> Obaid Farooqi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:48 PM >> To: Obaid Farooqi >> Cc: 'ronnie sahlberg'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >> Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] RE: MS-SAMR missing SID name use type ? >> >> On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 17:22 -0700, Obaid Farooqi wrote: >>> Good Afternoon Ronnie: >>> I am still waiting for your response. We need this info to move forward on >>> this case. >> >>> >>> I believe there might be one additional value for this enum to >>> describe a sid for a machine/computer : >>> >>> SidTypeComputer = 9 (or something similar) >>> >>> >>> This assumption is based on Wireshark and Samba4 code. >> >> Because of the long history of Samba - without suitable documentation for >> the most part, sometimes myths and legends build up. That said, I'm unable >> to produce this value on the wire for LSA lookup names. >> >> What we are asking is for is some research and clarification (if possible). >> We can't ask you how we got this in the first place, but we were hoping you >> might be able to do some digging, to check the IDL and see if this value >> ever occours in this enum in windows (ie, is this a cut-down enum), or if >> there is another similar (but not identical) enum that we might have got >> confused with. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Andrew Bartlett >> http://samba.org/~abartlet/ >> Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org >> Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. >> > _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
