Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: 2003 Server NTP time issue |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:00:12 -0400 |
Thank you to everyone who responded to me directly on the NTP issue. A few of you referenced MS article q830092 which relates to a problem with w32time on 2003 server. My circumstance does not fit the hotfix so MS won't release it to me. No big deal. I also choose not to open a paid call on this incident as there are plenty of work-arounds that work fine. If MS would comp the call I would happily work with them to fix this. Dave Hart wrote "As far as I know Windows clients never have used and do not use the DHCP option(s) for (S)NTP server addresses. Instead, Windows 2000/XP/2003 AD domain members use the domain hierarchy to form an automatic time synchronization tree rooted with one of the FSMO role holders in to root domain of the AD forest. In other words, a Windows AD domain member will always synchronize its Windows Time service to its domain's DCs, which themselves will be synchronized to any parent domains' DCs in the AD forest. So even if the DHCP server provides (S)NTP server addresses, Windows will not use then. Domain members will use the domain as a time source. This also holds true for domain members with a time source configured via "net time /setsntp:" which is ignored on every domain controller/member in a forest with the exception of the single Windows Time hierarchy root holding one of the FSMO roles (I'd have to look up which one) in the root domain of the forest." While I profess to not know much about NTP or how MS distributes time to it's members I would have to agree on this statement. The only remaining issue is why 2003 NTP is ignoring the request of a non-AD device. Martin Maher found a link that ultimately went to (long link, you may have to cut and paste to follow it): http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/200 3/all/deployguide/en-us/242310.asp This link describes a registry key that appears to open MS SNTP to respond to "unusual" NTP requests if it can understand them. If I had a non-production 2k3 DC server I would have liked to tried that but I am not sure that improperly crafted requests are the issue here as the affected devices can query outside NTP servers. The link he provided at http://www.salfordsoftware.co.uk/kb/SKB114 shows that someone had some success with this. If anyone else tries this I would be interested in their experience. I would also like to thank Thomas Bianco for providing the following link to a free fully functional NTP server that does work on 2003 servers: http://www.ntp.org/links.html. I implemented that this morning and the IP phones do sync properly now which tells me that it overrides or replaces the servers SNTP listener on the 2k3 server. While this doesn't fix the issue it is a nice internal and *free* time server that does sync with external servers of your choosing. Thanks again to everyone who responded. Jeff Berner Infinity Computers www.designapc.com <http://www.designapc.com/> ----- NTBugtraq Editor's Note: Want to reply to the person who sent this message? This list is configured such that just hitting reply is going to result in the message coming to the list, not to the individual who sent the message. This was done to help reduce the number of Out of Office messages posters received. So if you want to send a reply just to the poster, you'll have to copy their email address out of the message and place it in your TO: field. -----
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | SANS has release a GDI scanning tool, Jeffrey Thomas |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: SUS strange language behaviour with Microsoft .NET Framework Service Pack 2, Russ |
| Previous by Thread: | FW: 2003 Server NTP time issue, Jeff Berner |
| Next by Thread: | Inconsistencies between Windows Updates and AU/SUS, Joe Dance |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |