Microsoft's official enterprise support blog for AD DS and more
This is Shijo from our team in Bangalore once again. Today I’d like to briefly discuss account lockouts, and some UI behaviors that can trip admins up when dealing with account lockouts.
If you’ve ever had to troubleshoot an account lockout issue, you might have noticed that sometimes accounts appear to be locked on some domain controllers, but not on others. This can be very confusing since youtypically know that the account has been locked out, but when you inspect individual DCs, they don’t reflect that status. This inconsistency happens because of some minor differences in the behavior of the UI between Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, and Windows Server 2012.
Windows Server 2003
In Windows Server 2003 the "Account is locked out" checkbox can be cleared ONLY if the account is locked out on the domain controller you are connected to. This means that if an account has been locked out, but the local DC has not yet replicated that information, you CANNOT unlock the account on the local DC.
Windows 2003 account properties for an unlocked account. Note that the checkbox is grayed out.
Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2
In Windows Server 2008/2008 R2 the "Unlock account" checkbox will always be available (regardless of the status of the account). You can tell whether the local DC knows if the account is locked out by looking at the label on the checkbox as shown in the screenshots below:
Windows 2008 account properties showing the “Unlock Account” checkbox. Notice that the checkbox is available regardless of the status of the account on the local DC.
Windows 2008 (and higher) Account Properties dialog box showing locked account on this domain controller
If the label on the checkbox is just "Unlock account" then this means that the domain controller you are connected to recognizes the account as unlocked. This does NOT mean that the account is not locked on other DCs, just that the specific DC we're working with has not replicated a lockout status yet. However, unlike Windows Server 2003, if the local DC doesn’t realize that the account is locked, you DO have ability to unlock it from this interface by checking the checkbox and applying the change.
We changed the UI behavior in Windows Server 2008 to help administrators in large environments unlock accounts faster when required, instead of having to wait for replication to occur, then unlock the account, and then wait for replication to occur again.
Windows Server 2012
We can also unlock the accounts using the Active Directory Administrative Center (available in Windows Server 2008 R2 and later). In Windows Server 2012, this console is the preferred method of managing accounts in Active Directory. The screen shots are present below about how we can go about doing that.
You can see from the account screenshot that the account is locked which is denoted by the padlock symbol. To unlock the account you would have to click on the “Unlock account” tab and you would see achange in the symbol as can be seen below.
You can also unlock the account using the PowerShell command shown in the screenshot below.
In this example, I have unlocked the user account named test by simply specifying the DN of the account to unlock . You can modify your powershell command to incorporate many more switches, the details of which are present in thefollowing article.
Hopefully this helps explain why the older operating systems behave slightly differently from the newer ones, and will help you the next time you have to deal with an account that is locked out in your environment!
If you’re looking for more information on Account Lockouts, check out the following links:
Troubleshooting Account Lockout
Account Lockout Policy
Account Lockout Management Tools
Shijo “UNLOCK IT” Joy
We have republished MS13-066 with a corrected version of the hotfixes that contributed to this problem. If you had held off on installing the update, it should be safe to install on all of your ADFS servers now.
The updated security bulletin is here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/MS13-066
Thanks everyone for your patience with this one. If anyone is still having trouble after installing the re-released update, please call us and open a support case so that our engineers can get you working again!
Hi everyone, Adam and JR here with an important announcement.
We’re tracking an important issue in support where some customers who have installed security update MS13-066 on their AD FS 2.0 servers are experiencing authentication outages. This is due to a dependency within the security update on certain versions of the AD FS 2.0 binaries. Customers who are already running ADFS 2.0 RU3 before installing the update should not experience any issues.
We have temporarily suspended further downloads of this security update until we have resolved this issue for all ADFS 2.0 customers.
Our Security and AD FS product team are working together to resolve this with their highest priority. We’ll have more news for you soon in a follow-up post. In the meantime, here is what we can tell you right now.
What to Watch For
If you have installed KB 2843638 or KB 2843639 on your AD FS server, you may notice the following symptoms:
The Federation Service encountered an error while processing the WS-Trust request. Request type: http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/trust/RST/Issue Additional Data Exception details: System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. ---> System.TypeLoadException: Could not loadtype ‘Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols.XmlSignature.AsymmetricSignatureOperatorsDelegate' from assembly 'Microsoft.IdentityModel, Version=188.8.131.52, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35'. at Microsoft.IdentityServer.Service.SecurityTokenService.MSISSecurityTokenService..ctor(SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration securityTokenServiceConfiguration) --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at System.RuntimeMethodHandle._InvokeConstructor(Object args, SignatureStruct& signature, IntPtr declaringType) at System.Reflection.RuntimeConstructorInfo.Invoke(BindingFlags invokeAttr, Binder binder, Object parameters, CultureInfo culture) at System.RuntimeType.CreateInstanceImpl(BindingFlags bindingAttr, Binder binder, Object args, CultureInfo culture, Object activationAttributes) at Microsoft.IdentityModel.Configuration.SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration.CreateSecurityTokenService() at Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols.WSTrust.WSTrustServiceContract.CreateSTS() at Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols.WSTrust.WSTrustServiceContract.CreateDispatchContext(Message requestMessage, String requestAction, String responseAction, StringtrustNamespace, WSTrustRequestSerializer requestSerializer, WSTrustResponseSerializer responseSerializer, WSTrustSerializationContext serializationContext) at Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols.WSTrust.WSTrustServiceContract.BeginProcessCore(Message requestMessage, WSTrustRequestSerializer requestSerializer, WSTrustResponseSerializer responseSerializer, String requestAction, String responseAction, String trustNamespace, AsyncCallback callback, Object state)System.TypeLoadException: Could not load type 'Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols.XmlSignature.AsymmetricSignatureOperatorsDelegate' from assembly 'Microsoft.IdentityModel, Version=184.108.40.206, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35'. at Microsoft.IdentityServer.Service.SecurityTokenService.MSISSecurityTokenService..ctor(SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration securityTokenServiceConfiguration)
What to do if the problem occurs:
We’ll update this blog post with more information as it becomes available, including links to any followup posts about this problem.
Hi everyone, David here with a quick announcement.
Yesterday, MSRC announced a timeframe for deprecation of built-in support for certificates that use the MD5 signature hash. You can find more information here:
Along with this announcement, we've released a framework which allows enterprises to test their environment for certificates that might be blocked as part of the upcoming changes (Microsoft Security Advisory 2862966). This framework also allows future deprecation of other weak cryptographic algorithm to be streamlined and managed via registry updates (pushed via Windows Update).
Some Technical Specifics:
This change affects certificates that are used for the following:
For code signing certificates, we will allow signed binaries that were signed before March 2009 to continue to work, even if the signing cert used MD5 signature hash algorithm.
Note: Only certificates issued under a root CA in the Microsoft Root Certificate program are affected by this change. Enterprise issued certificates are not affected (but should still be updated).
What this means for you:
1) If you're using certificates that have an MD5 signature hash (for example, if you have older web server certificates that used this hashing algorithm), you will need to update those certificates as soon as possible. The update is planned to release in February 2014; make sure anything you have that is internet facing has been updated by then.
You can find out what signature hash was used on a certificate by simply pulling up the details of that certificate's public key on any Windows 8 or Windows Server 2012 machine. Look for the signature hash algorithm that was used. (The certificate in my screenshot uses sha1, but you will see md5 listed on certificates that use it).
If you are on Server Core or have an older OS, you can see the signature hash algorithm by using certutil -v against the certificate.
2) Start double-checking your internal applications and certificates to insure that you don't have something older that's using an MD5 hash. If you find one, update it (or contact the vendor to have it updated).
3) Deploy KB 2862966 in your test and QA environments and use it to test for weaker hashes (You are using test and QA environments for your major applications, right?). The update allows you to implement logging to see what would be affected by restricting a hash. It's designed to allow you to get ahead of the curve and find the potential weak spots in your environment.
Sometimes security announcements like this can seem a little like overkill, but remember that your certificates are only as strong as the hashing algorithm used to generate the private key. As computing power increases, older hashing algorithms become easier for attackers to crack, allowing them to more easily fool computers and applications into allowing them access or executing code. We don't release updates like this lightly, so make sure you take the time to inspect your environments and fix the weak links, before some attacker out there tries to use them against you.
--David "Security is everyone's business" Beach
Over at the Filecab blog, AskDS alum and all-around nice guy Ned Pyle has posted the first of several blogs about new features coming your way in Windows Server 2012 R2. If you're a DFS administrator or just curious, go take a look!
Ned promises more posts in the near future, and Filecab is near and dear to our hearts here in DS (they make a bunch of things we support), so if you don't already have it on your RSS feed list, it might be a good time to add it.
[Editor's note: Everything Mark mentions for Windows 8 clients here is also true for Windows 8.1 clients. Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 clients use the same (v3) profile version, so the 8.1 upgrade will not prevent this from happening if you have roaming profiles in your environment. Something to be aware of if you're planning to migrate users over to the new OS version. -David]
Hi. It’s Mark Renoden, Senior Premier Field Engineer in Sydney, Australia here again. Today I’ll offer a workaround for an issue that’s causing a number of customers around the world a degree of trouble. It turns out to be reasonably easy to fix, perhaps just not so obvious.
The knowledge base article "Unpredictable behavior if you migrate a roaming user profile from Windows 8 to Windows 7" - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2748329 states:
Windows 7 and Windows 8 use similar user profile formats, which do not support interoperability when they roam between computers that are running different versions of Windows. When a user who has a windows 7 profile signs in to a Windows 8-based computer for the first time, the user profile is updated to the new Windows 8 format. After this occurs, the user profile is no longer compatible with Windows 7-based computers. See the "More information" section for detailed information about how this issue affects roaming and mandatory profiles.
This sort of problem existed between Windows XP and Windows Vista/7 but was mitigated by Windows Vista/7 using a profile that used a .v2 extension. The OS would handle storing the separate profiles automatically for you when roaming between those OS versions. With Windows 7 and Windows 8, both operating systems use roaming profiles with a .v2 extension, even though Windows 8 is actually writing the profile in a newer format.
The solution is to use separate roaming profiles for each operating system by utilizing an environment variable in the profile path.
File server for profiles:
Note:As an alternative to separate OUs, a WMI filter may be used to filter according to Operating System:
Windows 7 - SELECT version FROM Win32_OperatingSystem WHERE Version LIKE “6.1%” and ProductType = “1″
Windows 8 - SELECT version FROM Win32_OperatingSystem WHERE Version LIKE “6.2%” and ProductType = “1″
3. Edit Win7GPO
4. Edit Win8GPO
5. Set user profile paths to \\Server\ProfilesShare\%OSVer%\%username%\
2. Log in as users and you’ll observe that different user profiles are created in the appropriate folder in the profiles share depending on client OS
I haven't run into any issues in testing but this might be one of those cases where it's important to use "wait for network". My testing suggests that using "create" as the action on the environment variable mitigates any timing issues. This is because after the environment variable is created for the machine, this variable persists across boots and doesn't depend on GPP re-application.
You may also wish to consider the use (and testing) of a folder redirection policy to provide users with their data as they cross between Windows 7 and Windows 8 clients. While I have tested this to work with“My Documents”, there may be varying degrees of success here depending on how Windows 8’s modern apps fiddle with things.
- Mark “Square Peg in a Round Hole” Renoden
Time for a quick lesson in blog history. There'll be a quiz at the end! Ok not really, but some history all the same.
Back a few years ago when we here at Microsoft were just starting to get savvy to this whole blog thing, one of our support escalation engineers, Tim Springston, decided to start up a blog about Active Directory. You might have seen it in the past. Over the years he's posted some really great insights and posts there that are definitely worth reading if you have the time.
Of course, the rest of us decided to do something completely different and started up AskDS a little later. Rumor has it that it had something to do with a high-stakes poker game (Tim *is* from Texas, after all), but no one is really sure why we wound up with two support blogs to be honest - it's one of those things that just sort of happened.
Anyway, all this time while we've been partying it up over here on TechNet, our AD product team has been marooned over on MSDN with an audience of mostly developers. Not that developers are bad folks - after all, they make the apps that power pretty much everything - but the truth is that a lot of what we do in Active Directory in terms of feature development is also targeted at Administrators and Architects and IT Pros. You know, the people who read blogs on TechNet and may not think to also check MSDN.
After a lot of debate and discussion internally, the AD product team came to the conclusion that they really should have a presence on TechNet so that they could talk to everyone here about the cool features they're working on.
The problem? Well, we sort of had a monopoly over here in support on AD-related blog names. :)
Meetings were convened. Conferences were held. Email flew back and forth. Their might even have been some shady dealings involving gifts of sugary pastries. In the end though, Tim graciously agreed to move his blogging efforts over to AskDS and cede control of http://blogs.technet.com/ad to the Active Directory Product team.
The result? Everyone wins. Tim's now helping us write cool stuff for AskDS (you'll see plenty of that in the near future, I'm sure), and the product team has already started posting a bunch of things that you might have missed when they were on MSDN.
If you haven't seen what they're up to over there, go and take a look . And as we get out of summer and get our people back from vacation, and, you know, roll a whole new server OS out the door, keep an eye on both blogs for updates, tips, explanations, and all manner of yummy AD-related goodness.
--David "Wait, we get another writer for AskDS??" Beach
Hello folks, this is Herbert from the Directory Services support team in Europe!
Kerberos is becoming increasingly mandatory for really cool features such as Protocol Transition. Moreover, as you might be painfully aware, managing Service Principal Names (SPN’s) for the use of Kerberos by applications can be daunting at times.
In this blog, we will not be going into the gory details of SPNs and how applications are using them. In fact, I’m assuming you already have some basic knowledge about SPN’s and how they are used.
Instead, we’re going to talk about an interesting behavior that can occur when an administrator is doing their due diligence managing SPN’s. This behavior can arise when you are checking the status of the account the SPN is planned for, or when you are checking to see if the SPN that must be registered is already registered in the domain or forest.
As we all know, the KDC’s cannot issue tickets for a particular service if there are duplicate SPN’s, and authentication does not work if the SPN is on the wrong account.
Experienced administrators learn to use the SETSPN utility to validate SPNs when authentication problems occur. In the Windows Server 2008 version of SETSPN, we provide several options useful to identifying duplicate SPNs:
- If you want to look for a duplicate of a particular SPN: SETSPN /q <SPN>
- If you want to search for any duplicate in the domain: SETSPN /x
You can also use the “/f” option to extend the duplicate search to the whole Forest. Many Active Directory Admins use this as a proactive check of the forest for duplicate SPNs.
So far, so good…
Sometimes, you’ll get an error running SETSPN -x -f:
c:\>SETSPN -X -F -P Checking forest DC=contoso,DC=com Operation will be performed forestwide, it might take a while. Ldap Error(0x55 -- Timeout): ldap_get_next_page_s
“-P” just tells the tool not to clutter the output with progress indications, but you can see from that error message that we are not talking only about Kerberos anymore. There is a new problem.
In a network trace of the above you will see a query against the GC (port 3268) with no base DN and the filter “(servicePrincipalName=*)”. SETSPN uses paged queries with a page size of 100 objects. In a large Active Directory environment this yields quite a number of pages.
If you look closely at network capture data, you’ll often find that Domain Controller response times slowly increase towards the end of the query. If the command completes, you’ll sometimes see that the delay is longest on the last page returned. For example, when we reviewed data for a recent customer case, we noted:
”Customer also noticed that it usually hangs on record 84.”
Troubleshooting LDAP performance and building custom queries calls for the use of the STATS Control. Here is how you use it in LDP.exe:
Once connected to port 3268 and logged on as an admin, you can build the query in the same manner as SETSPN does.
1. Launch LDP as an administrator.
2. Open the Search Window using Browse\Search or Ctrl-S.
3. Enter the empty base DN and the filter, specify “Subtree” as the scope. The list of attributes does not matter here.
4. Go to Options:
5. Specify an “Extended” query as we want to use controls. Note I have specified a page size of 100 elements, but that is not important, as we will see later. Let’s move on to “Controls”:
5. From the List of Controls select “Search Stats“. When you select it, it automatically checks it in.
6. Now “OK” your way out of the “Controls” and “Options” dialogs.
7. Hit “Run” on the “Search” dialog.
You should get a large list of results, but also the STATS a bit like this one:
Call Time: 62198 (ms)
Entries Returned: 8508
Entries Visited: 43076
Used Filter: (servicePrincipalName=*)
Used Indices: idx_servicePrincipalName:13561:N
Pages Referenced : 801521
Pages Read From Disk : 259
Pages Pre-read From Disk : 1578
Pages Dirtied : 0
Pages Re-Dirtied : 0
Log Records Generated : 0
Log Record Bytes Generated: 0
What are these stats telling us?
We have a total of 8508 objects in the “Entries Returned” result set, but we have visited 43076 objects. That sounds odd, because we used an Index “idx_servicePrincipalName”. This does not really look as if the query is using the index.
So what is happening here?
At this point, we experience the special behavior of multi-valued non-linked attributes and how they are represented in the index. To illustrate this, let me explain a few data points:
1. A typical workstation or member server has these SPNs:
2. When you look at the result set from running setspn, you notice that you’re not getting all of the SPNs you’d expect:
dn:CN=HQSCCM2K3TEST,OU=SCCM,OU=Test Infrastructure,OU=Domain Management,DC=contoso,DC=com
If you look at it closely, you notice all the SPN’s start with characters very much at the end of the alphabet, which also happens to be the end of the index. These entries do not have a prefix like “HOST”.
So how does this happen?
In the resultant set of LDAP queries, an object may only appear once, but it is possible for an object to be in the index multiple times, because of the way the index is built. Each time the object is found in the index, the LDAP Server has to check the other values of the indexed attribute of the object to see whether it also matches the filter and thus was already added to the result set. The LDAP server is doing its diligence to avoid returning duplicates.
For example, the first hit in the index for the above workstation example is “HOST/HERBERTM5“.
The second hit “HOST/HERBERTM5.europe.contoso.com“ kicks off the algorithm.
The object is read already and the IO and CPU hit has happened.
Now the query keeps walking the index, and once it arrives at the prefix “WSMAN”, the rate of objects it needs to skip approaches 100%. Therefore, it looks at many objects and little additional objects in the result set.
On the last page of the query, things get even worse. There is an almost 100% rate of duplicates, so the clock of 60 seconds SETSPN allows for the query is ticking, and there are only 8 objects to be found. If the Domain Controller has a slow CPU or the objects need to be read from the disk because of memory pressure, the SETSPN query will probably not finish within a minute for a large forest. This results in the error Ldap Error(0x55 -- Timeout): ldap_get_next_page_s. The larger the index (meaning, the more computers and users you have in your forest), the greater the likelihood that this can occur.
If you run the query with LDIFDE, LDP or ADFIND you will have a better chance the query will be successful. This is because by default these tools do not specify a time-out and thus use the values of the Domain Controller LDAP Policy. The Domain Controller LDAP policy is 120 seconds (by default) instead of 60 seconds.
The problem with the results generated by these tools is that you have to correlate the results from the different outputs yourself – the tools won’t do it for you.
So what can you do about it?
Typically you’ll have to do further troubleshooting, but here are some common causes/resolutions that I’ve seen:
2799960 Time-out error when you run SETSPN.exe in Windows 8 or Windows Server 2012
The last customer I helped had a combination of issues 1 and 2 and once he chose a beefier DC with more current hardware, the command always succeeded. Another customer had a much bigger environment and ended up using the update I listed above to overcome the issue.
I hope you have enjoyed this journey explaining what is happening on such a SETSPN query.
Herbert "The Thread Master" Mauerer
Just in case you missed the announcement, the preview build of Windows Server 2012 R2 is now available for download. If you want to see the latest and greatest, head on over there and take a gander at the new features. All of us here in support have skin in this game, but Directory Services (us) has several new features that we'll be talking about over the coming months. Including a lot of this stuff named in the announcement:
"Empowering employee productivity – Windows Server Work Folders, Web App Proxy, improvements to Active Directory Federation Services and other technologies will help companies give their employees consistent access to company resources on the device of their choice."
Obviously this is still a beta release. Things can change before RTM. Don't go doing anything silly like deploying this in production - it's officially unsupported at this stage, and for testing purposes only. But with all that in mind, give it a whirl, and hit the TechNet forums to provide feedback and ask questions. You will also want to keep an eye on some of our server and tools blogs in the near future. For your convenience, a bunch of those are linked in the bar up top for you.
--David "Town Crier" Beach