Older versions of heimdal did work with packet cable but since I didn't have anything to test with I broke it on purpose when code changed.
Love 15 jan 2009 kl. 00.32 skrev ronnie sahlberg: > I think there is a company called Blue-Cable or something that does > these things. > > > I doubt that either a MIT or Heimdal (or any rfc1510) server will > work since packet-cable uses a non-1510 implementation of kerberos 5. > Its very similar but there are subtle differences. > They use either a pre-1510 draft or a forked different standard, dont > know which, suspect the first. > >> From experience implementing both packetcable and also 1510 in > wireshark we got around this by changing the ASN to make some > structure fields OPTIONAL which were OPTIONAL in packet-cable but were > mandatory in the official 1510. > > The changes I had to make was rather smallish and I did put a comment > in packet-kerberos.c in wireshark to indicate these non-1510 changes. > This was possible since we only unmarshall packets and never marshall > them and thus sprinkling the ASN with extra OPTIONAL is harmless. > > There might be additional changes required if you also need to > marshall data. Dont know. You take lots of shortcuts when you only > unmarshall data. > > > I think I recall also other differences (not ASN changes) that related > to things like preauthentication types/blobs, enctypes, salt blobs > etc etc. > (Some which actually surprised me when they were resurrected in > microsoft ad krb5 with the same numbers and the same meaning > sometime around when w2k3 was released). > > > Was a long time ago I did packetcable for wireshark so my memory is > hazy... > There was at some point a post on the wireshark mailinglist (long > after i implemented the packetcable changes in ws) that linked to a > full set of official specification for packetcable and in particular > their krb5 implementation. > This was in the days when wireshark was called ethereal. > > > regards > ronnie sahlberg > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Aleem AKHTAR <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Could I get information which kerberos server is best suited for >> Packet cable project specification. Is there any limitation if we >> use open source krb5 server published by MIT ?? >> In wireshark the incompatibility issue between 1510 and packetcable >> is minor since we only ever unmarshall packets and never mashall >> them. >> >> Thanks, >> Aleem >> >> >> ________________________________________________ >> Kerberos mailing list [email protected] >> https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos >> > ________________________________________________ > Kerberos mailing list [email protected] > https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos ________________________________________________ Kerberos mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
