> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cifs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cifs- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve French > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 6:55 PM > To: samba-technical; linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Samba server problem with validate negotiate info fsctl? > > With the kernel patch I recently submitted to list for review, tried the > validate negotiate info fsctl (unsigned) on an smb3.0 mount against Windows > 8.1 server and it failed, dropping the connection immediately. I repeated it > with "sign" mount option and it worked fine. > > Trying the validate negotiate info fsctl against Samba though it worked fine > with signing disabled implying that the server is not checking to make sure > that that request is signed (the validate negotiate info fsctl is always > supposed to be signed right?) Indeed yes - and signing the validate negotiate is important to ensure it's not tampered with by a MITM attacker. The MS-SMB2 document makes the client requirement in section 3.2.5.5 (emphasis added): "If MaxDialect is "3.000" or "3.002", and RequireSecureNegotiate is TRUE, the client MUST validate the SMB2 NEGOTIATE messages originally sent on this connection by sending a *signed* VALIDATE_NEGOTIATE_INFO request as specified in section 2.2.31.4. " Note that "MaxDialect" is the highest dialect the client is capable of, not necessarily the dialect negotiated on the connection. This too is important, to detect a negotiation downgrade by a MITM. Since the server will sign its response, even a failure can be used to complete the validation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
