Re: Kerberos machine authentication - apparent authentication fail
From: JCB_MCSE_wannabe (JCBMCSEwannabe_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 05/31/05
- Next message: David Beder [MSFT]: "Re: Port Range in Exceptions"
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Kerberos machine authentication - apparent authentication fail"
- In reply to: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Kerberos machine authentication - apparent authentication fail"
- Next in thread: Tim: "Re: Kerberos machine authentication - apparent authentication fail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 20:55:01 -0700
Thanks once again. I will watch out for the IPSec conflicts you cautioned
about as well.
This dialog has been most helpful.
-- JCB\1059 "Steven L Umbach" wrote: > Reply in line. > > "JCB_MCSE_wannabe" <JCBMCSEwannabe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in > message news:C0BEBF72-7A42-438D-801D-9F393ECDC17D@microsoft.com... > > Steven: > > > > I was so close! I surmised that the wireless was somehow the root cause > > of > > the authentication failures, because I could watch the NIC calling for a > > DHCP > > lease renewal AFTER I logged on. I greatly appreciate you taking the time > > to > > provide a thoroughly descriptive answer. I don't know if you read my > > profile, but I am new to networking and have gained experience with much > > of > > the required skills needed to pass the MCSE certification exams. > > Thankfully, > > I have the resources to build a labbing network to get much-needed > > hands-on > > time with the Server product. > > > > But if you don't mind, let me address your replies on a point-by-point > > basis, as you have stimulated further thought and need for clarification > > on > > my part. > > > > > > -- > > JCB\1059 > > > > > > "Steven L Umbach" wrote: > > > >> When you joined your computer to the domain your wireless network card > >> was > >> initialized and working properly. However when you reboot your computer > >> the > >> network card does not initialize fast enough in order to have the > >> computer > >> authenticate to the domain. > > > > This is absolutely correct. However, isn't there a Group Policy setting > > (or > > Local Policy, as the case may be) which will delay authentication until > > the > > network is ready? > > There is a Group Policy setting for fast network optimization for windows XP > Pro that usually [there are exceptions as stated in link below] causes a > user to be logged on with cached credentials, though it does not always seem > to work with wireless network cards that take a long time to access the > network. I have the same situation with my laptop and it's D-link wireless > card. I also have an Intel network adapter and WAP that does not have this > problem and even works well with 802.1X EAP-TLS for domain logon. > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305293&Product=winxp > > >> The computer does not necessarily need to > >> authenticate to the domain resources in order for a user to access domain > >> resources particularly if cached logons are enabled. With cached logons > >> you > >> are logged with cached domain credentials to the local computer. When you > >> try to access domain shares while logged on with cached credentials you > >> are > >> denied access until you can authenticate to a domain controller as a > >> user. > >> By the time you attempt such your network card is probably initialized > >> and > >> thus you can access the domain controller, be authenticated, and then > >> access > >> a domain share. > > > > There is a tremendous amount of information you have provided above; let > > me > > see if I fully understand the implications: > > > > - I understand what you mean about cached domain logons. In fact, I have > > just set the policy value to zero (from 10) for various reasons. But what > > you said next caught me off guard - that is, you are suggesting that even > > though I am not INITIALLY authenticated, once the NIC is fully > > initialized, I > > will SUBSEQUENTLY be initiated? Is this correct? If so, it would seem > > that > > the problem I have observed would EVENTUALLY disappear upon subsequent > > invocations of the Netdiag command - is this correct??? I CAN access net > > shares via a UNC path on the machines that show the initial Kerberos > > error. > > Hmmmm.... > > > > In addition to disabling cached logons also disable fast logon optimization. > Another thing that could be happening is that the network connection is not > happening fast enough for computer authentication but it is ready for user > authentication which alsways happens after the attemp to authenticate the > computer account. If cached domain credentials are disabled and the computer > can not contact a domain controller when the user attempts to logon the > domain then the user authentication will fail and the users will get a > message that a domain controller can not be contataced or something to that > effect. Try logging onto the domain when the domain controller is either > shut down or disconnected from the network to see what happens. If cached > logons are allowed then yes the user can be authenticated to the domain > after a domain cached logon. Netdiag may still show kerberos errors because > the user has authenticated via lm/ntlm/ntlmv2 since kerberos authentication > failed or because the "computer account" does not have a kerberos ticket. In > most cases [ipsec a possible exception] kerberos authentication is not > needed to access domain resources as long as the client and server use a > common authentication method for lm/ntlm/ntlmv2. > > > > > > > Another downside of not having the computer account > >> authenticated to the domain is that the computer configuration Group > >> Policy > >> will not be applied/refreshed at startup. > > > > - Dammit! I thought I was going crazy. Now I understand why certain > > (computer) policy changes I made were not applied...UNTIL normal GP > > refresh > > had occured! > > > Group Policy is always applied or refreshed at startup for computers and > logon for users. Certain Group Policy elements such as Software Installation > can only be applied at startup/logon and redirection of folders can only be > done at logon. > > >> > >> You should have logging of account logon events enabled in Domain > >> Controller > >> Security Policy which it is by default in Windows 2003 and also enable > >> auditing of logon events on your domain computers which may also provide > >> helpful information including if cached logons are being used. The set > >> command when run on a domain computer will also show the authenticating > >> computer/domain controller. > > > > - A user logging on locally will generate a "Logon" event, while a user > > logging on to the domain/network will be authenticated by a DC and > > generate > > an "Account Logon" event. BUT, what about the MACHINE account? Will > > there > > be an entry in the appropriate security logs indicating Logon vs. Account > > Logon? If so, will the log(s) first show a Logon event followed by an > > Account Logon event, if my machine is SUBSEQUENTLY authenticated (as per > > my > > comments above) > > Computer account account logon events for a domain computer logon to the > domain will show only in the security log of a domain controller if you have > auditing of account logon events enabled which it is by default. I am not > sure offhand if a computer account will try to authenticate after failuer to > do so at the intitial startup. That is something you can look for in your > domain controller security log. It may happen if the computer tries to > engage in an ipsec negotiate connection which would require computer > authentication. > > >> While kerberos is the default authentication protocol of choice, fallback > >> can be done to lm/ntlm/ntlmv2 in a Windows 2000/2003 domain. Kerberos > >> failure is not usually as problematic as is problems with the computer > >> account as shown by errors/failed test with trust/secure channel as shown > >> with netdiag. Kerberos authentication for the "computer" is however > >> required > >> for domain negotiation ipsec policy using ESP/AH if using default > >> authentication for the ipsec policy. > > > > - Now I understand the IPSec negotiation errors I have been seeing with > > NetMonitor. > > Be careful with ipsec policy. Most do not understand [too little > documentation] that domain computers and domain controllers can not > communicate with ipsec AH/ESP due to the fact that the domain controller is > also the kerberos distribution center. Domain controllers must be exempt > from ipsec policies for the domain that involve domain computers or all > sorts of problems can occur. Refer to the KB article below for more details > and to the Windows 2003 Deployment Kit chapter on ipsec which is a free > download at the second link. > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q254949 > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/library/DepKit/119050c9-7c4d-4cbf-8f38-97c45e4d01ef.mspx > > > > > Also keep in mind that the netdiag > >> /debug switch may also give more detailed info on why a test failed. > >> > >> I bet that if you hard wire one of your domain computers to the network > >> that > >> you will not see the problem with kerberos anymore. > > > > - You are correct! > > > > Also since you are > >> interested in troubleshooting you will find packet sniffing very helpful > >> for > >> a problem such as yours or many other problems. In your case monitoring > >> packet activity on the domain controller while a domain computer is > >> booting > >> up will tell a lot, particularly if you have a capture of a successful > >> domain computer account logon to compare to. Windows 2003 Server has the > >> built in netmon though I personally much prefer Ethereal which is free. > >> Also > >> dns configuration for the domain MUST be correct or all sorts of problems > >> will ensue. The first link below is a good quick read on dns for an > >> Active > >> Directory domain and the second is on troubleshooting kerberos errors > >> which > >> can be displayed in the security logs of domain controllers. --- Steve > >> > > - I have not experienced many DNS errors (probably because I chose an > > AD-integrated DNS implemnentation - which seems to be quite simple). One > > annoying problem, confirmed by monitoring, was that after removing Root > > Hints > > from the DNS server and disabling recursion for the domain (NOT the > > server), > > my server was STILL resolving on the internet. I had configured > > Forwarders > > to my ISP's DNS servers for "all other domains", so as to hide my server > > (as > > much as possible) and to put the work of resolution off on my ISP (or so I > > thought). But each time I would reboot the server (which I do a lot for > > labbing, probably FAR more than would ever be done in a production > > environment), the Root Hints table was persistently repopulated. > > Apparently, > > this table cannot be void, so I entered my SOA server as a root hint. > > This > > has fixed the problem, but was certainly NOT an intuitive solution! (at > > least > > for a newbie like myself) > > > > Thanks for you spot-on technically accurate response. If you have any > > thoughts on the points I raised above, I'd love to learn more from you. > > You can still have dns problems with an AD domain. The main issue is to > NEVER include an ISP dns server in the preferred server list in the tcp/ip > properties or DHCP scope of any domain computer or any computer you want to > join to the domain in which case your computers may be trying to locate the > domain _srv records on the ISP dns server and fail. I would not worry about > the root hints table. If you have disabled recursion for the domain then > your dns server should be a slave to your ISP dns server and never use root > hints which will work fine as long as your ISP dns servers respond to dns > requests from your network. Even if your dns server does use root hints your > dns server should be at very little risk as long as your firewall is > blocking incoming destination port 53 udp/tcp to your dns server. > > It looks like you are well on your way to learning material for the MCSE as > you want to learn "hands on" and have a thirst for knowledge which is a huge > plus. --- Steve > > > > Many thanks, JCB > > > > > >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B291382 > >> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/technologies/security/tkerberr.mspx > >> > >> > >> "JCB_MCSE_wannabe" <JCBMCSEwannabe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in > >> message news:5EDF6C37-EDA1-4889-803F-AF8CB8FCB878@microsoft.com... > >> > NOTE: This post was incorrectly posted under "Access Security" > >> > previously. > >> > I misinterpreted the topic as resource access, not MS Access database > >> > product...oh well!.... > >> > > >> > > >> > I am new to networking. I recently built a small AD-integrated DNS > >> > domain > >> > network for labbing purposes using my TechNet Plus Server 2003 Ent. OS. > >> > The > >> > single server is also running DNS and DHCP. All of my clients (yeah, > >> > all > >> > SIX > >> > of them - I did say SMALL!) are running XPsp2. Hosts connect to the > >> > network > >> > using wireless cards through a linksys NAT-enabled router/switch. The > >> > server > >> > is hard wired to one of the switch ports on the linksys. I am using > >> > 128-bit > >> > WEP encryption > >> > and further control access using a MAC table of allowed hosts on the > >> > wireless. Three machines are workstations and three are > >> > laptop/portables. > >> > > >> > I successfully joined the client machines to the domain. They receive > >> > DHCP-assigned IP addresses. However, when I run the Netdiag commmand, > >> > I > >> > receive PASSING results for all tested parameters, EXCEPT the Kerberos > >> > test > >> > which gives a: " [FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for > >> > host/mymachinename.mydomainname" result. > >> > > >> > The strange thing is that immediately after I joined the machines to > >> > the > >> > domain and ran Netdiag, a PASSING Kerberos result is obtained. > >> > HOWEVER, > >> > once > >> > the machines are restarted, the Kerberos test yields a consistent > >> > FAILED > >> > status. With Server2003/XP, I thought Kerberos v.5 was the default > >> > authentication protocol. If my machine is not being authenticated, how > >> > come > >> > I can still access domain resources? Should my audit logs show a > >> > "logon" > >> > event instead of an "account logon" event if my machine is not
- Next message: David Beder [MSFT]: "Re: Port Range in Exceptions"
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Kerberos machine authentication - apparent authentication fail"
- In reply to: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Kerberos machine authentication - apparent authentication fail"
- Next in thread: Tim: "Re: Kerberos machine authentication - apparent authentication fail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|