Your message dated Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:11:05 +0200
with message-id 
<cafx5sbw9hc04_pehbpwieaobnousf9eu9mbvaikeusion5n...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#820981: samba: Credentials chain 
check failed
has caused the Debian Bug report #820981,
regarding samba: Credentials chain check failed
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)


-- 
820981: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820981
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: samba
Version: 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u9
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

   * What led up to the situation?

Update to samba 3.6.6-6+deb7u9

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?

apt-get upgrade

   * What was the outcome of this action?

Mac and Linux clients we're unable to connect to the Samba-Server.

Apr 14 10:10:28 smb smbd[9919]:   rpccli_netlogon_sam_network_logon: 
credentials chain check failed
Apr 14 10:10:28 smb smbd[9919]: [2016/04/14 10:10:28.633965,  0] 
auth/auth_domain.c:331(domain_client_validate)
Apr 14 10:10:28 smb smbd[9919]:   domain_client_validate: unable to validate 
password for user xxxxx in domain XXXXX to Domain controller 
XXX.XXXXX.LOCALDOMAIN. Error was NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED

See also 
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/276379/samba-netlogon-creds-server-check-failed-rejecting-auth-request-from-client

   * What outcome did you expect instead?

Successful login.

*** End of the template - remove these lines ***


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.10
  APT prefers oldstable
  APT policy: (500, 'oldstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL 
set to en_US.UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages samba depends on:
ii  adduser                3.113+nmu3
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]  1.5.49
ii  dpkg                   1.16.17
ii  libacl1                2.2.51-8
ii  libattr1               1:2.4.46-8
ii  libc6                  2.13-38+deb7u10
ii  libcap2                1:2.22-1.2
ii  libcomerr2             1.42.5-1.1+deb7u1
ii  libcups2               1.5.3-5+deb7u6
ii  libgssapi-krb5-2       1.10.1+dfsg-5+deb7u7
ii  libk5crypto3           1.10.1+dfsg-5+deb7u7
ii  libkrb5-3              1.10.1+dfsg-5+deb7u7
ii  libldap-2.4-2          2.4.31-2+deb7u1
ii  libpam-modules         1.1.3-7.1
ii  libpam-runtime         1.1.3-7.1
ii  libpam0g               1.1.3-7.1
ii  libpopt0               1.16-7
ii  libtalloc2             2.0.7+git20120207-1
ii  libtdb1                1.2.10-2
ii  libwbclient0           2:3.6.6-6+deb7u9
ii  lsb-base               4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
ii  procps                 1:3.3.3-3
ii  samba-common           2:3.6.6-6+deb7u9
ii  update-inetd           4.43
ii  zlib1g                 1:1.2.7.dfsg-13

Versions of packages samba recommends:
ii  logrotate  3.8.1-4
ii  tdb-tools  1.2.10-2

Versions of packages samba suggests:
pn  ctdb                              <none>
pn  ldb-tools                         <none>
pn  openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver  <none>
pn  smbldap-tools                     <none>

-- debconf information excluded

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u910

2016-06-16 22:40 GMT+02:00 Bodo Bellut <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I can confirm this has been fixed in Debian on bug #821811.
>
> I've just upgraded a PDC to 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u10, no need to change smb.conf.
> winbind was naver been installed on this server.

Thanks. Marking as done then.

Regards
-- 
Mathieu

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to