1 Jun 2008 02:08
FC8/Samba 3.0.28: Could not receive trustdoms
Geekasaurus <cvail <at> airmail.net>
2008-06-01 00:08:00 GMT
2008-06-01 00:08:00 GMT
I've been using Samba for a number of years, but this is becoming IMPOSSIBLE to set up and maintain. The setup is simple: 2 computers, 1 Windows XP SP2 with all the latest patches and such [hostname doofus], 1 Fedora Core 8 running Samba 3.0.28 [hostname dumbee]. I am able to make it work after a fashion. I can browse to the /mnt1 filesystem [ext3, if anyone cares] and read/write files to it. I am now trying to get Norton Ghost to work, and their help desk is worse than useless. The goal is to backup the XP system to the Linux system. Ghost did work for a week, but recently I've been getting errors. It does seem to be a problem with Samba. At the time I get the Ghost errors, I get the an error in the log.wb-WORKGROUP file, with a timestamp that matches the attempt on the XP machine. The error is: libsmb/clientgen.c:cli_receive_smb(112) Receiving SMB: Server stopped responding. At the same moment, in the log.winbindd file, I get another error with the same timestamp, and the mesage: nsswitch/winbindd_util.c:trustdom_recv(229) Could not receive trustdoms. With the same timestamp, in the log.$IP_ADDY file I see: auth/auth_util.c:create_token_from_username(1116) sid_to_uid for cvail (S-1-5-21-1203031067-1067078206-1052721417-2000) failed The results of # net user root cvail(Continue reading)
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Dan Sledz <dan.sledz <at> isilon.com>
> wrote:
>> We had a report of a winbindd (v3.0.24 + Todd Stecher's 2k8 patches)
>> core on a customer's Windows 2008 forest. On investigation, it
>> appears
>> that the negTokenInit returned via Negotiate Protocol Response is
>> strangely formed. In particular, it has a new OID that I've never
>> seen
>> before (1.3.6.1.4.1.311.2.2.30) as well as a zero length mechToken
>> instead of it being omitted per spec. All I have right now is the
>> blob
>> itself since I've been unable to get a pcap of it occurring.
>>
Apart from that, we've got no special problem to report...but please
understand that, as the package is in Debian experimental, the user
feedback os somewhat small.
RSS Feed