I see where the confusion has arised from now.
LSA and SAMR both contain a definition for SID_NAME_TYPE but they are subtly different. The definitions of SID_NAME_TYPE in LSA and SAMR are identical up to item 8 where the SAMR version ends. LSA contains two extra name types COMPUTER==9 and LABEL==10 Any particular reason why SAMR and LSA uses similar but different definitions of this structure? This leads to confusion. regards ronnie sahlberg On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:36 PM, ronnie sahlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
