[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
Title: | MS Windows NT Developers |
Notice: | See note 1222 for MS bug reporting info |
Moderator: | TARKIN::LIN EIBER |
|
Created: | Mon Nov 11 1991 |
Last Modified: | Tue Jun 03 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 3247 |
Total number of notes: | 15633 |
3245.0. "Access denied/named pipes/RPC" by PTHRED::SHARRIS () Fri May 30 1997 12:06
I'm looking for more ideas about what could be causing an "Access
denied" message that we get when we try to use RPC with named pipes
to a particular machine. This same call works ok on other machines
running the same version of NT, so I'm looking for something that must
need tweaking on the problem machine.
Here's the scenario:
Machine "x" tries to access Machine "y" with an RPC call using
a named pipe. Both machines are running NT V4.0, Service Pack 2,
both are Intel machines.
The logged-on user on Machine "x" does NOT have a local account
on machine "y" - but does have a domain account. (If we put a local
account on machine "y" or if the user from "x" logs into the
domain account, everything is just fine. But, since this same
scenario works to machine "z", where there is not a local
account either, and it DOES use the domain account, it doesn't make
sense!)
All machines have Guest accounts and have "Everyone, Guests,
Administrators" set in the User Rights for "Access to this computer
from network". (I was trying everything!) Guest belongs to the Guests
group, as well.
All machines are in the same domain.
Access using TCP doesn't have this kind of problem...only named
pipes.
I tried auditing logon failures and object access on machine "y",
but it doesn't seem to tell me much. When it fails, it says that it
was a logon failure from "domain x, username", and it was KsecDD giving
the failure on a network login of type 3 (network login). Note that it
does not reference the REAL domain name, it references it as domain
"x", since the user is logged in locally on machine "x".
When it works, we don't even see a network login being audited! (And
I have both success/failure being audited.)
We only see the subsequent 'impersonation' login that our server code does
to login (so the audit entry shows a login type of 2 from advapi).
This is from our "logon_as_user" call in the server.
We also tried some things programmatically, but they didn't seem to
help: using the example from the MSDN of Server.c for named pipes,
we tried setting a security descriptor that allows "everyone"
access to the named pipe. (SECURITY_WORLD_RID gets SPECIFIC_RIGHTS_ALL
and STANDARD_RIGHTS_ALL.) Then we send this security descriptor in as
the last parameter to rpc_server_use_all_protseqs, when registering
the server on Machine "y". But this didn't seem to make any difference
at all. Nor could I detect anything happening in the audit file when
I tried this, altho the debugger indicated success status on all
calls...We couldn't find much documentation on this parameter to
rpc_server_use_all_protseqs, however. Maybe this kind of SD should
be applied in some other fashion?
On the other hand, access to node "z" works just fine without any
programming changes.
Shouldn't the access right to "access this computer from the network"
be all that is needed? Any ideas on anything else to look at
here?!?!?!?
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
3245.1 | | POLAR::MOKHTAR | | Mon Jun 02 1997 10:42 | 5 |
|
i am not sure i follow : don't you say that if either x or z logs into
the domain then they can access y ? i did not understand where z does
something x can't.
|
3245.2 | try again... | PTHRED::SHARRIS | | Mon Jun 02 1997 15:40 | 7 |
| re: .1 There are several cases. It's true that if node x is logged
into the domain account, everything works, to both machines y and z.
But if node x is logged into the local account, and there is no local
account for that user on y OR z, but there are domain accounts for that
user on y and z, then rpc access works to node z, but doesn't work to
node y, for some reason...
|