Skip to main content

windows server 2003 - Active Directory: Accessing network share as WinXP SYSTEM user




The Problem:



I cannot access a Domain Computers-accesible network share by a process running on Windows XP as a SYSTEM account.



I've got a 2008R2 domain, a 2003R2 file server and a set of clients.



On the file server, I've made a share accessible by the Domain Computers group. The share is supposed to hold a read-only repository of files (Wpkg) to be accessed from domain workstations by a system service (Wpkg-GP) run by SYSTEM user.



Now the problem is that, while it works perfectly on Windows 7, it completely fails on Windows XP. It seems, that for some reason the SYSTEM account on Windows XP cannot authenticate as a computer. See more in details.




The Question:



What do I do wrong?



Is it perhaps a natural behaviour of Windows XP system? If so, can it be changed or fixed? Or is there any other way to achieve a scenario, in which a network share would be visible to the SYSTEM user on computers, without being accessible by the users?



The Details:





  • The Domain Computers group has received permissions both for the files and for the share

  • I have checked higher permissions, all the way from Read to Full Controll

  • I have tested the issue with fresh, out-of-the-box operating systems installed on VBox



Since the problem was reported by application, I first began to verify actual SYSTEM user rights. On both Windows versions (7 and XP) I have opened an elevated cmd session impersonating SYSTEM account (using PsExec -s -i cmd.exe) and attempted to manually mount the network share :



net use x: \\myfs.mydomain.com\Wpkg



On Windows 7, the drive has been mounted without demur. But on Windows XP the command responded with information about incorrect password and a prompt for new one:



[Windows XP]
Password for \\myfs.mydomain.com\Wpkg is incorrect.

Please enter password for "myfs.mydomain.com": _


(please note that this is only a translation, an official english locale may sound differently)


Answer




FIXED!



The source of the problem was the fileserver not registering itself into DC DNS. It seems it was apparently done by someone on purpose - the corresponding network interface option has been manually unchecked:



(network interface) 
-> Properties
-> TCP/IP Protocol
-> Advanced
-> DNS
-> [ ] Register this connection's address in DNS



After checking the above option and issuing ipconfig /registerdns:




  • fileserver registered properly in DC DNS records

  • Windows XP SYSTEM user began to properly mount the problematic share without being asked for credentials



The different behaviour of Windows XP and Windows 7 must be due to some difference in internal implementation; I'd guess Kerberos, though my knowledge of Kerberos is yet superficial.







I find it interesting enough to add, that a quite similar thing happens when I try to add a CNAME record from ie. wpkg.domain.mydomain.com to filesystem.domain.mydomain.com:



In Windows XP only the final host name works:



C:\WINDOWS\system32>dir \\wpkg[.domain.mydomain.com]\wpkg
Access denied.


C:\WINDOWS\system32>dir \\fileserver[.domain.mydomain.com]\wpkg
[...result OK... ]


...while on Windows 7 there is nothing against using CNAME:



C:\WINDOWS\system32>dir \\wpkg[.domain.mydomain.com]\wpkg
[...result OK... ]

C:\WINDOWS\system32>dir \\fileserver[.domain.mydomain.com]\wpkg

[...result OK... ]


Note that here I got an Access denied error, not a password prompt.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able