Building from the ports collection it stops in 'nsswitch/pam_winbind.po' every
time.
Stop in bulid for 5.0-RELEASE Not sure if this is a known bug for 5.0. Same
problem with both my freshly installed 5.0 boxes.
Tariq.
. . . Linking bin/winbindd Compiling nsswitch/pam_winbind.c with -fPIC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi (lukeh?)!
Why does my LDAP server deny the following request?
ldapmodify sends this IA== (base64 for blank) as '04 01 20' according
to ethereal.
If I have a non-base64 value, say 'xxx', in 'profilePath' this works
perfecly fine.
This is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
profilePath:: IA==
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/ldif$ ldapmodify -x -D cn=admin,dc=samba,dc=org -w secret -f
test.ldif
modifying entry uid=vl,dc=kampf,dc=de
ldap_modify: Invalid syntax
Ooops. I had wanted to edit this completely...
Volker
-BEGIN
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just a heads up for everyone. I'm planning
the 3.0alpha23 release for this Friday. If you have code
that needs to be merged of commited to the SAMBA_3_0 cvs tree,
please get in checked in by 8am EST on Friday of the week.
Would
At 12:12 27.03.2003 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
I noticed that all smb_register_*() fn's return BOOL
and the init_module() fn's returns int
so this is wrong:
I don't have problems with this. We only need the return value in
smb_probe_module() to check for failure, and False is defined to be
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:44:55PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
Why does my LDAP server deny the following request?
Ok, this seems to be something specific to OpenLDAP 2.0. With 2.1.16
just compiled this works as expected. Could this be called a bug?
Volker
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
We were using 2.0.6 on a SunOS 5.6 server, using domain security in an NT domain, and
have upgraded to 2.2.8 for the security fix. Now, when the file permissions are
displayed on an NT client, ACL's are only shown for user/group/other if there are R,W,
or X permissions. If u, g, or o have no
Hi tony,
based on your log file, it sure does APPEAR that you have NOT turned off
encrypted passwords,
as samba is trying to open /usr/local/samba/private/smbpasswd. It should
only do that if it negotiated encrypted passwords in the negot prot call,
which it should only be able to do if encrypted
Hi all!
I'm commiting a new framework for working with smb.conf(5) Docbook sources
into HEAD docs/docbook/smbdotconf/. It is not yet ready for production
(most of parameters not yet converted to new meta-information description
system) but infrastructure is there and should allow more easily
Am Thursday 27 March 2003 03:43 schrieb Christopher R. Hertel:
Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi!
I noticed a difference between testsmbc smb://MYGRP and testsmbc
smb://mygrp (it doesn't make a difference for SAMBA servers, but it
does for XP and for winME) So please apply the included patch.
I have implemented the bad password attempt lockout policy. If an user
attempt with the bad password more than the count setted in the policy, then
his account will be auto-locked, like what did NT. The implementation is only
for LDAP passdb backend.
To do this, I have to introduce a new
Hi,
Quick follow up... the problem was on another server. After the last
reboot, not too long ago, fast-ethernet negotiation between the
Cisco switch and the Sun server did not work properly. Cisco switch
negotiated at 100Mbps/full and the Sun server in half duplex.
Pierre B.
Pierre Belanger
Hi there! I've been trying to get Samba 3.0 to use plaintext passwords and unicode for
a while now.
The first thing I stumbled on was solved, it was a service pack that needed to be
applied to w2k. (Thanks!)
This is the second thing I stumbled on:
In line 613 of sesssetup.c (latest CVS) there
Remember, this opens up a new vulnerability, to denial
of service attacks. See, for example
http://www.uksecurityonline.com/threat/password.php
If you're implementing this, implement the approved strategy,
also use by NT, of locking it for a settable period, and
not locking out priveledged
Hi,
I turned on use sendfile, not too long after (on the next
logon) someone called me. His Windows 95 was having trouble
opening files on the server. He can explore the shared volume
but when trying to open a file, his computer hangs and needs
to reboot. I've been using sendfile myself with
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:01:55PM -0500, Pierre Belanger wrote:
Hi,
I turned on use sendfile, not too long after (on the next
logon) someone called me. His Windows 95 was having trouble
opening files on the server. He can explore the shared volume
but when trying to open a file, his
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 05:43:55PM +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Thursday 27 March 2003 03:43 schrieb Christopher R. Hertel:
Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi!
I noticed a difference between testsmbc smb://MYGRP and testsmbc
smb://mygrp (it doesn't make a difference for SAMBA servers, but it
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 06:58, David Collier-Brown -- Customer Engineering
wrote:
Remember, this opens up a new vulnerability, to denial
of service attacks. See, for example
http://www.uksecurityonline.com/threat/password.php
If you're implementing this, implement the approved strategy,
We're having problems on Samba 2.2.7a and 2.2.8, IBM JFS 1.1.1, Linux
version 2.4.20, bestbits ACLs, etc. The problem is seen with Windows 2000
and Windows XP clients.
I get different permissions for the default group on new files
directories depending on if the directory tree is xcopied or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John,
I just confirmed that the security tab on a share is missing
with a recent build of SAMBA_3_0. I'll look into this (unless
someone has an immediate idea).
cheers, jerry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Not that this is correct or anything... just my 2cents.
I tend in my own code to return negative integers to indicate warnings or
errors, with different negative values having different meaning (as
needed). That way, I can simply check for 0 on return. If I want to
get specific about what
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John,
I just confirmed that the security tab on a share is missing
with a recent build of SAMBA_3_0. I'll look into this (unless
someone has an immediate idea).
Thanks. I was beginning to
Before I send all the details, I thought I'd check to see if this is
a known problem. I've got version 3.0 alpha20 running on a FreeBSD
-current box. When I try to print from a Win2000 box, smbd encounters
an internal error. Gdb shows pjob_store() is calling pjob_store_notify()
with a bad
I posted some further analysis of this problem to the list a while back.
I've got some captures. Basically, different Windows clients that can
provide plaintext upper-case don't quite get it right. At least, they are
not all formatting things the same way.
I don't have time just now to look
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Pierre Belanger wrote:
Hi,
I turned on use sendfile, not too long after (on the next
logon) someone called me. His Windows 95 was having trouble
opening files on the server. He can explore the shared volume
but when trying to open a file, his computer hangs and needs
You can already do that through pam_tally, what does your approach add ?
Simo.
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 15:34, Jianliang Lu wrote:
I have implemented the bad password attempt lockout policy. If an user
attempt with the bad password more than the count setted in the policy, then
his account
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 07:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 02:23:45PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
Earlier this week, I had a serious meltdown of Samba HEAD at my site.
(A 100 concurrent user, domain logon and homedir setup).
All the users share a single mandatory
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 07:40, Simo wrote:
You can already do that through pam_tally, what does your approach add ?
We can't correctly trigger pam_tally from the encrypted password check.
Also, the pam_tally is dodgy - it doesn't correctly handle 'oh, they got
it right'. (It makes assumptions
I was poking around in the segv signal handling code today as I'm in a
situation where an actual core dump would be handy to have.
The intent of the current code looks like core dumps are to be made in
$LOGDIR/corefiles but the dump_core() function is never executed as the
argument to
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tim Potter wrote:
I was poking around in the segv signal handling code today as I'm in a
situation where an actual core dump would be handy to have.
The intent of the current code looks like core dumps are to be made in
$LOGDIR/corefiles but the dump_core() function is
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:41:55PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tim Potter wrote:
I was poking around in the segv signal handling code today as I'm in a
situation where an actual core dump would be handy to have.
The intent of the current code looks like core
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 17:17, Tim Potter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:41:55PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tim Potter wrote:
I was poking around in the segv signal handling code today as I'm in a
situation where an actual core dump would be handy to have.
Whoops! extract is really expand.
expand /? at the command prompt shows the options for expanding files
with the trailing underscore. I use
expand -r *.??_
which creates new, renamed, expanded files from the compressed ones.
A word of warning: some compressed files do not have the
33 matches
Mail list logo
