Good morning Nadya – Bill Wesse here; Obaid is out of the office, and I will be your contact for this case.
Could you send me a network capture of the CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION error you are receiving? Thanks in advance; this will help us in making sure we get things right! Regards, Bill Wesse MCSE, MCTS / Senior Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC Protocol Team 8055 Microsoft Way Charlotte, NC 28273 Email: bil...@microsoft.com<mailto:bil...@microsoft.com> Tel: +1(980) 776-8200 Cell: +1(704) 661-5438 Fax: +1(704) 665-9606 From: Bill Wesse Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 9:48 AM To: "nivan...@samba.org" <nivan...@samba.org> Cc: "cifs-proto...@samba.org" <cifs-proto...@samba.org>; "MSSolve Case Email" <casem...@microsoft.com> Subject: [REG:210063056197932001] Need some clarification on the User-Change-Password access rights Hi Nadya: Thank you for clarification. I’ll get back to you as soon as I have an answer. Regards, Obaid Farooqi Sr. Support Escalation Engineer | Microsoft From: didr...@gmail.com [mailto:didr...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Nadezhda Ivanova Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:58 AM To: Obaid Farooqi Cc: cifs-proto...@samba.org; MSSolve Case Email Subject: Re: [REG:210063056197932001] Need some clarification on the User-Change-Password access rights Hi Obaid, I am looking at: 5.1.3.3.4 Checking Control Access Right-Based Access and 2.5.4.1 Access Check Algorithm Pseudocode In the access check algorithms, every time an access check is failed, insufficient access is returned, I did not see an instance of constraint violation. In 5.1.3.3.4, it is mentioned that in this and this case we deny the requested access, which leads me to believe insufficient access is returned. If constraint violation is the correct response for particular case, I think we definitely need some disambiguation on a per Control Access Right basis... Regards, Nadya On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Obaid Farooqi <oba...@microsoft.com<mailto:oba...@microsoft.com>> wrote: Hi Nadya: Please let me know according to which document you should receive INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS_RIGHTS. Regards, Obaid Farooqi Sr. Support Escalation Engineer | Microsoft From: Obaid Farooqi Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:22 AM To: 'nivan...@samba.org<mailto:nivan...@samba.org>' Cc: cifs-proto...@samba.org<mailto:cifs-proto...@samba.org>; MSSolve Case Email Subject: RE:[REG:210063056197932001] Need some clarification on the User-Change-Password access rights Hi Nadya: My name is Obaid Farooqi and I’ll be helping you with this issue. I’ll be in touch as soon as I have anything concrete. Please feel free to contact me if you have a question/clarification. Regards, Obaid Farooqi Sr. Support Escalation Engineer | Microsoft From: didr...@gmail.com<mailto:didr...@gmail.com> [mailto:didr...@gmail.com<mailto:didr...@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Nadezhda Ivanova Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:31 AM To: Interoperability Documentation Help; cifs-proto...@samba.org<mailto:cifs-proto...@samba.org> Subject: Need some clarification on the User-Change-Password access rights Hello, I am currently working on enforcing the User-Change-Password control access right on password change operations in Samba 4, and there are a few things that puzzle me, perhaps you could help. I am testing agains a Win2008 server, domain and forest functional levels are 2008. The user object class has the following ACE in the defaultSecurityDescriptor: (OA;;CR;ab721a53-1e2f-11d0-9819-00aa0040529b;;WD), OA;;CR;ab721a53-1e2f-11d0-9819-00aa0040529b;;PS) I created a user and removed these two for the purposes of negative testing. However, when I performed a password change operation(delete and add of unicodePwd), I got CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION error rather than INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS_RIGHTS. I granted the user write property access, but the result was the same. Alternatively, a user to whom I explicitly denied WP access was able to change their password if they have User-Change-Password. So my question is: Is the write access to unicodePwd controlled only by User-Change-Password, and WP is disregarded in this case? Why is the error returned CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION? Also, given that by default we this control access right is granted to EVERYONE, this means that the actual line of defence is the changer knowing the original password. If they know the password, it does not matter which account changes the user's password, which makes sense. However, in this case, why bother with checking User-Change-Password at all? It appears that its purpose is to allow a user (or any account for that matter) to change the password even if they do not have WP access on themselves, am I correct? Best Regards, Nadya ________________________________ Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy. Please read the Microsoft Privacy Statement<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=81184> for more information. The above is an email for a support case from Microsoft Corp. REPLY ALL TO THIS MESSAGE or INCLUDE casem...@microsoft.com<mailto:casem...@microsoft.com> IN YOUR REPLY if you want your response added to the case automatically. For technical assistance, please include the Support Engineer on the TO: line. Thank you.(*634135945473241748*)
_______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list cifs-protocol@cifs.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
