[cifs-protocol] RE: [Pfif] erroneous references to little-endian
Good morning Mr. French! I have created case SRX09042864 for your question, and will begin my investigation shortly. I will keep you advised of progress! Regards, Bill Wesse MCSE, MCTS / Senior Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM 8055 Microsoft Way Charlotte, NC 28273 TEL: +1(980) 776-8200 CELL: +1(704) 661-5438 FAX: +1(704) 665-9606 -Original Message- From: Steve French [mailto:smfre...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:14 PM To: Interoperability Documentation Help Cc: p...@tridgell.net; cifs-proto...@samba.org Subject: Re: [Pfif] erroneous references to little-endian In implementing SMB2 Negotiate protocol support I noticed that the structure definition is off by 2 bytes. Section 2.2.4 of MS-SMB2.pdf shows the SMB2 negotiate response as an SMB2 header followed by le16 StructureSize; /* Must be 65 */ le16 DialectCount; le16 SecurityMode; le16 DialectRevision; /* Should be 0x0202 */ ... etc when it actually has no DialectCount which is clear when decoding by hand (or looking at it in Wireshark) le16 StructureSize; /* Must be 65 */ le16 SecurityMode; le16 DialectRevision; /* Should be 0x0202 */ ... etc The server in this case is Vista. The dialect negotiated was 0x0202 in response to an SMB2 only (not SMB) negotiate protocol request. -- Thanks, Steve ___ cifs-protocol mailing list cifs-protocol@cifs.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
RE: [cifs-protocol] RE: CAR - problem with MS-ADTS docs on possibleInferiors
Andrew, We will rename POSSSUPNOSUBCLASSES to make it easier to read by adding underscore as you suggested. It will appear in a future release of MS-ADTS document. Thanks for your suggestion!! Thanks! Hongwei -Original Message- From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abart...@samba.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:34 AM To: Hongwei Sun Cc: tri...@samba.org; p...@tridgell.net; cifs-proto...@samba.org Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] RE: CAR - problem with MS-ADTS docs on possibleInferiors On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 16:03 -0700, Hongwei Sun wrote: Tridge, Thanks for pointing out the problem in the description of POSSSUPERIORS(). We revised the definition of the function in section 3.1.1.4.2 of future release of MS-ADTS. Please let us know if there is any problem. Can you please rename POSSSUPNOSUBCLASSES? It's a real mouthful and really, really painful to read. A few underscores would make the world of difference. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. http://redhat.com ___ cifs-protocol mailing list cifs-protocol@cifs.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
