This is a discussion on Re: Question on ntlm_auth tool - Samba ; Hi Andrew, Thank you very much for your reply! I have some more questions inline At 06:44 PM 9/10/2004 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: >On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 10:02, Yimin Chen wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Thank ...
Thank you very much for your reply! I have some more questions inline
At 06:44 PM 9/10/2004 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 10:02, Yimin Chen wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > Thank you very much for the suggestion. I wasn't aware at all that
> > winbind_request APIs are not for external use.
> > Now Looking at the ntlm_auth tool again, I have a few more questions:
> > 1) What is the option to retrieve the challenge from the server? In the
> > NTLM authentication case, we need to pass the challenge back to client,
> > and then retrieve the NT LM responses from client response, and pass the
> > callenge as well as the NT LM responses to the ntlm_auth tool, right?
> > I must have missed something, but can't figure out.
>Are you doing NTLM or NTLMSSP? What is the target protocol? (MSCHAP?
[YM] It is HTTP ntlm authentication that we are trying to do. So I guess it
is NTLMSSP/HTTP? What is the difference between NTLM/NTLMSSP? I had thought
they are same.
>Fundamentally, ntlm_auth operates as a privileged client in the domain,
>and the challenge is either generated inside the helper, or supplied to
>it, depending on mode of operation.
[YM] I see. Could you please clarify for me whether my following
understanding is correct?
So the client machine our proxy process running should first join the
domain as a privileged client, and then the proxy process can generate the
challenge ourselves every time we want to authenticate an HTTP client, and
then pass the challenge/NT LM responses to the ntlm_auth binary to
authenticate the user. Is this correct? Or ntlm_auth will itself join the
> > 2) Is there a dynamic library API instead of binary calls of ntlm_auth
> > that we can use to achieve the ntlm authentication? Invoking API calls
> > could have lower overhead than binary calls.
>Not at this stage - it was decided that a fork()/exec() interface
>allowed for the best compatibility going forward, as well as a clear
>licence boundary. There are proposals for a shared lib interface for
>other winbind functions, but I don't yet see the need to extend it here.
>Andrew Bartlett firstname.lastname@example.org
>Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
>Student Network Administrator, Hawker College email@example.com