Hi Hongwei, Currently I am using the Samba make test framework. I'll find a way to make a script that can be used without Samba and let you know.
Until then, if it helps, this is the ACL I am providing upon group creation, in SDDL: sddl = "D:(OA;;CR;ab721a53-1e2f-11d0-9819-00aa0040529b;;PS)(OA;;CR;ab721a54-1e2f-11d0-9819-00aa0040529b;;PS)(OA;;CR;ab721a56-1e2f-11d0-9819-00aa0040529b;;PS)(OA;;RPWP;77b5b886-944a-11d1-aebd-0000f80367c1;;PS)(OA;;RPWP;e45795b2-9455-11d1-aebd-0000f80367c1;;PS)(OA;;RPWP;e45795b3-9455-11d1-aebd-0000f80367c1;;PS)(OA;;RP;037088f8-0ae1-11d2-b422-00a0c968f939;;RS)(OA;;RP;4c164200-20c0-11d0-a768-00aa006e0529;;RS)(OA;;RP;bc0ac240-79a9-11d0-9020-00c04fc2d4cf;;RS)(A;;RC;;;AU)(OA;;RP;59ba2f42-79a2-11d0-9020-00c04fc2d3cf;;AU)(A;;RPWPCRCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;DA)(A;;RPWPCRCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;SY)(A;;RPWPCRCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;AO)(A;;RPLCLORC;;;PS)(OA;;CR;ab721a53-1e2f-11d0-9819-00aa0040529b;;PS)(OA;;RP;77b5b886-944a-11d1-aebd-0000f80367c1;;AU)(OA;;RP;e45795b3-9455-11d1-aebd-0000f80367c1;;AU)(OA;;RP;e48d0154-bcf8-11d1-8702-00c04fb96050;;AU)(OA;;CR;ab721a53-1e2f-11d0-9819-00aa0040529b;;WD)(OA;;RP;5f202010-79a5-11d0-9020-00c04fc2d4cf;;RS)(OA;;RPWP;bf967a7f-0de6-11d0-a285-00aa003049e2;;CA)( OA;;RP;46a9b11d-60ae-405a-b7e8-ff8a58d456d2;;S-1-5-32-560)(OA;;RPWP;6db69a1c-9422-11d1-aebd-0000f80367c1;;S-1-5-32-561)(OA;;RPWP;5805bc62-bdc9-4428-a5e2-856a0f4c185e;;S-1-5-32-561)" + ("(D;;RPWPCRCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;%s)(D;;RPLCLORC;;;%s)" % (sid, sid)) The group is in an OU where inheritance is broken, that is, it will not inherit anything from the parent. The sid variable is the sid of a regular user, I suppose any user would do. Thanks, Nadya ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hongwei Sun <hongw...@microsoft.com> > To: Nadezhda Ivanova <nadezhda.ivan...@postpath.com> > Cc: cifs-proto...@samba.org <cifs-proto...@samba.org>, MSSolve Case Email > <casem...@microsoft.com> > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 0:03:41 AM (GMT+02:00) Helsinki, Kyiv, Riga, > Sofia, Tallinn, Vilnius > Subject: [REG:110041557300829] RE: [cifs-protocol] Questions regarding > 7.1.3.1 ACE Ordering Rules > > Nadya, > > Active Directory is supposed to apply the requirements to any > security descriptors maintained by a DC, as described in section > 7.1.3. ACE ordering is one of the requirement. If forest functional > level is DS_BEHAVIOR_WIN2003 and fDontStandardizeSDs is false, the > ACEs in the ACLs will be sorted by DC using the ACE ordering rule in > 7.1.3.1 MS-ADTS. This enforcement should happen either when a new > object is created or when LDAP modify on security descriptor is done. > If the ACE reordering cannot be done for some reasons, there will be > no LDAP error returned and. The order of explicit ACEs supplied by > the client is preserved. > > You are running test against Windows 2008 and by default > fDontStandardizeSDs should be zero. So the ACE reordering should > happen. Could you send me (1)the LDAP command you used to create the > group > (2)the SD you provided > (3)the dump of SD finally set on group object ? > I will investigate to find the reason why reordering is not happening. > > > I am working on the clarification for the section of 7.1.3.1 based on > two of your questions. I will let you know. > > Thanks! > > Hongwei > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cifs-protocol-boun...@cifs.org > [mailto:cifs-protocol-boun...@cifs.org] On Behalf Of Nadezhda Ivanova > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:22 AM > To: Interoperability Documentation Help > Cc: cifs-proto...@samba.org > Subject: [cifs-protocol] Questions regarding 7.1.3.1 ACE Ordering > Rules > > Hello, > I was running some test against a Windows 2008 server, forest > functional level and domain functional level are both 2008. I created > a group via LDAP and provided a security descriptor with ACE's > deliberately scrambled - e.g Deny before Allow, Object Specific before > Regular. I did not get an LDAP error, the group was successfully > created, but the SD looked the way I provided it, that is, not > according to the rules described in this section. Can you explain why > this happens? What behavior should I expect, is Windows supposed to > sort them, return an error, or sort them later, or when a recalculate > hierarchy request is sent? > > In addition: > What is ACE canonical form? > In the sentence: "The nest rule is only applied if the previous > rule(s) give inconclusive results" - what would constitute an > inconclusive result? > > Best Regards, > Nadya > > _______________________________________________ > cifs-protocol mailing list > cifs-protocol@cifs.org > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list cifs-protocol@cifs.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol