linux-kernel - Re: CIFS regression mounting vers=1.0 NTLMSSP when hostname is too long

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fea279e9-bec2-591c-203e-25385d958d4@winds.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 May 2022 23:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Byron Stanoszek <gandalf@...ds.org>
To:     Paulo Alcantara <pc@....nz>
cc:     Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CIFS regression mounting vers=1.0 NTLMSSP when hostname is too
 long

On Tue, 17 May 2022, Paulo Alcantara wrote:

> Could you please try below patch?
>
> Let me know if I missed something else.  Thanks.
>
>> From bf63fb30ac90c06f45e40acbd3bbd2284d8ffffb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Paulo Alcantara <pc@....nz>
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 17:23:23 -0300
> Subject: [PATCH] cifs: fix ntlmssp on old servers
>
> Some older servers seem to require the workstation name during ntlmssp
> to be at most 15 chars (RFC1001 name length), so truncate it before
> sending when using insecure dialects.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/e6837098-15d9-acb6-7e34-1923cf8c6fe1@winds.org
> Reported-by: Byron Stanoszek <gandalf@...ds.org>
> Fixes: 49bd49f983b5 ("cifs: send workstation name during ntlmssp session setup")
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Alcantara (SUSE) <pc@....nz>
> ---
> fs/cifs/cifsglob.h   | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> fs/cifs/connect.c    | 22 ++++------------------
> fs/cifs/fs_context.c | 29 ++++-------------------------
> fs/cifs/fs_context.h |  2 +-
> fs/cifs/misc.c       |  1 -
> fs/cifs/sess.c       |  6 +++---
> 6 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)

Hi Paulo,

I confirm that the patch worked for me (against Linux 5.16.13).

Regards,
  -Byron