| Title: | PATHWORKS for OSF/1 |
| Notice: | see also NOTED::PWDOSWINV5 (PW client) & TURRIS::DIGITAL_UNIX |
| Moderator: | CPEEDY::LONG |
| Created: | Thu Apr 22 1993 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1874 |
| Total number of notes: | 6870 |
Windows NT4.0 clients are having multiple sessions open to a pw-osf
V5.0geco2 server, resulting in a high number of sessions and access
denied errors.
For every disk map a session is created. But some of them have a
blanco user name. This results in a access denied error on the client.
I found a similar problem description in the pwv50ift notes files.
-note 4155 and 4198.
and in two ipmt cases
-cfs49378 and 49402.
The story:
NT sends a sesssetup smb with a NULL username. This means
that when you do a net sessions you see a valid username
and a null username.
Unfortunately there was a slight problem that when the
NULL session request came along, and the active session
was the origional username session that the active user
was marked as a NULL session. This meant that this user
could get access problems on his already connected shares.
So a possible bug in NT (the empty username session) caused
a bug in PW. The fix now makes sure that we mark the
correct session as a NULL session (= the new session).
This fixes the access errors but still shows an empty
username session (which is valid because NT sends us one).
Adrie
This is the PW-VMS solution. Is there a solution for Pw-OSF?
/Geert Dhaens
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1830.1 | Enter a CLD | CPEEDY::GARDE | Tue Apr 29 1997 13:58 | 6 | |
We do not have a fix for this, and have seen it on v6.1 as well.
Please log a CLD. Thanks.
- Ces
| |||||
| 1830.2 | CPEEDY::HORGAN | Craicailte indiadh damhsa agus cricta�l! | Fri May 09 1997 13:53 | 4 | |
The null (ghost) session established by NT 4.0 clients is Microsoft's problem. The issue has been forwarded to Microsoft. Julia | |||||
| 1830.3 | RANGER::BACHUS::DHAENS | Mon May 12 1997 08:34 | 7 | ||
When can we expect to have a solution?
Can we formally state that this problem is from Microsoft, and that
the solution will be provided by them?
/Geert
| |||||