Hi there.
Sorry if I missed a few things, I am not yet experienced and
understanding enough of all the details in that mess - CIFS.
A question I have now - in name query requests, there is in the struct
nmb_name a field/member:
unsigned int name_type;
Assumably this indicates something about
I am not able to use ip address in servername instead of netbios name,
like
smbclient //10.3.1.90/tvs1 -P -N
It gives error:
session request to *SMBSERVER failed (Called name not present)
but when I use server netbios name instead of IP address it gets
connected successfully.
How can I
I don't know the answer to this one but
you might get more responses from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
brad
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 07:25, Geeta Singh wrote:
I am not able to use ip address in servername instead of netbios name,
like
smbclient //10.3.1.90/tvs1 -P -N
It gives error:
session request
Luke Howard wrote:
46 06 10: OBJECT IDENTIFIER '1 2 840 113554 1 2 2 3'
The first is Microsoft's bodged Kerberos OID, which appears to be used
in the SPNEGO negotiation only. The next is the real Kerberos OID. Not
sure about the one afther that. The final one is NTLMSSP.
Steve
Thanks, I've committed a patch that adds these commands to smbclient.
I made it a bit different tough.
(Also added a patch for xfile.c)
Simo.
On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 11:48, Josef Zlomek wrote:
Hello!
I have written the commands reget and reput for smbclient.
When user gets/puts a large file
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Geeta Singh wrote:
I am not able to use ip address in servername instead of netbios name,
like
smbclient //10.3.1.90/tvs1 -P -N
It gives error:
session request to *SMBSERVER failed (Called name not present)
You did not give a NetBIOS name and you are contacting one
Hi there.
Comments below:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:14:11AM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Tom Alsberg wrote:
snip /
What are those types? I mean, what valid values can the name_type
field have, and what are their meanings? Is there some table of the
possible
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 11:13:10AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
BTW, did you see that the Extreme Blue team announced at CIFS2002 that
they had implemented shared libraries for external RPC services in smbd?
That is, /pipe/FUTZ
This deserves further comment, because it demeans the fine detective work
that the Extreme Blue team did in figuring out the details of the new RPCs
and how to set up OpenLDAP so Samba can function as an AD Domain
Controller.
Sure, IBM have been very helpful. We've got some changes to
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Luke Howard wrote:
This deserves further comment, because it demeans the fine detective work
that the Extreme Blue team did in figuring out the details of the new RPCs
and how to set up OpenLDAP so Samba can function as an AD Domain
Controller.
Sure, IBM have
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 11:13:10AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
BTW, did you see that the Extreme Blue team announced at CIFS2002 that
they had implemented shared libraries for external
technically, the pipe split was at the RPC PDU layer. not arbitrary
support for loading a named pipe module. We still have a hard coded
path for supported pipe names. It was just the RPC functions that got
split out. This is good from a SQA perspective but maybe not so much
for supporting
Oh, and the aforementioned funnel still relies on SAMBA's internal mapping
of pipe names to UUIDs. It's a start, though...
-- Luke
--
Luke Howard | lukehoward.com
PADL Software | www.padl.com
It looks like the recent changes to 'correct' NTLMSSP have broken NTLMv2
in some way - Probably in much the same way that we suddenly got LM
based session keys once we got the rest correct.
Works fine for me, but I'm the first to admit I'm not sure how to verify
I'm really using NTLMv2. The
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:24:02AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote about 'Re: Converting new
docs':
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 03:13, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
Is there any specific reason the docs are GPL'ed and not Copylefted?
I don't care, just wondering :-)
GPL is a copyleft licence :))
you mean why
On 28 Aug 2002, Simo Sorce wrote:
GPL is a copyleft licence :))
you mean why not use FDL? (free Documentation License)
Or the OPL.
Mikal
--
Michael Still ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) UMT+10hrs
Hi,
Here is the content of the security blob in a sessionsetupX from a Win2K
box.
It looks wrong because it seems to be a negTokenInit, not the
negTokenTarg I would expect.
Can anyone comment?
[rsharpe@tulomne ethereal] dumpasn1 -txh -157 ~/sesssetup.cap
60 50
60 50:
17 matches
Mail list logo
