Bug 6309 - samba ignores account expiration when using encrypted(SMB) passwords
samba ignores account expiration when using encrypted(SMB) passwords
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: samba (Show other bugs)
6.1
i386 Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Trond Eivind Glomsrxd
: Security
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 1999-10-24 12:49 EDT by Mario Lorenz
Modified: 2008-05-01 11:37 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-09-14 03:21:48 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Mario Lorenz 1999-10-24 12:49:55 EDT
Even after account expiration (as per /etc/shadow) that user
can use samba resources if encrypt passwords is set to yes
(to accomodate Win98 users). If not using encrypted
passwords, account expiration works as expected (thanks to
PAM, I guess).

Workaround would be not to use encryption.. But then (fear!)
I would have to change registry settings on all the Win
clients.......
Comment 1 Andrew Bartlett 2000-09-14 03:21:03 EDT
This is becouse samba does not use PAM when checking encryped passwords.

A better approach would be the one used by OpenSSH, still using PAM despite
having a RSA authentication.
Comment 2 Henri Schlereth 2001-01-21 08:45:46 EST
The current version(s) of Samba now use PAM. Please try a newer version and if the problem still exists re-open this bug report.
Comment 3 Andrew Bartlett 2001-01-28 08:49:18 EST
No release of Samba will involve PAM in the checking of ANYTHING if encrypted
passwords are used, hence the problem.  Currently all PAM is allowed to do is to
say yea or nea to a particular username/password pair, and only if the
plain-text password is available.  (Account disabling is then caught as it
checks the account module in the same process).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.