Score:0

Active Directory LDAP logon failure

nc flag

I'm at the end of my wits with this issue and I'm hoping some genius here can assist. Background: We have a client (a hospital) with 3 sites in AD and two DCs at each site. These DCs are 2012 and we're moving to new 2022 DCs. Not upgrading, putting in new 2022 VMs and retiring the old ones.

The plan is to raise the domain functional level to 2016 once all the 2012 is retired.

Between their LoB apps and devices, they use a LOT of LDAPS. So far, all but one of the VM replacements have been completed and it's gone well. However, they have one piece of medical software that has continually refused to authenticate with LDAP to any of the new servers and will only authenticate against the one remaining 2012 server.

We have spent many hours trying to solve this and have come up with nothing. It doesn't matter if we do the queries with LDAP or LDAPS, the result is the same. When we try to run bindings in LDP, this is what we get from any of the new servers:

res = ldap_bind_s(ld, NULL, &NtAuthIdentity, NEGOTIATE (1158)); // v.3
{NtAuthIdentity: User='<REDACTED>'; Pwd=<unavailable>; domain = '<REDACTED>'}
Error <49>: ldap_bind_s() failed: Invalid Credentials.
Server error: 8009030C: LdapErr: DSID-0C09070F, comment: AcceptSecurityContext error, data 52e, v4f7c
Error 0x8009030C The logon attempt failed

The 52e error code indicates the password is incorrect, but we have tried with several accounts and it is NOT invalid credentials. If we use the exact same credentials to bind to the 2012 DC, everything works fine.

I tried spinning up a fresh server that I only installed AD LDS on (I didn't make it a domain controller) and I get the same result there too. Everything is configured exactly as it should be as far as several of us can tell, the new servers just refuse to authenticate properly.

Has anyone seen this before? Our next step is involving Microsoft support, which is very expensive so we'd like to avoid that if possible. Thank you all!

cn flag
`it doesn't matter if we do the queries with LDAP` is the query failing or the bind failing? If unable to bind on port 389, it would be much simpler to use that test case and omit the information about TLS/port 636 and any queries.
Parallax Abstraction avatar
nc flag
Based on the error, I believe the bind is failing. If I run LDP, I can connect to the new servers fine, but when we attempt to bind any credentials, that's the result we get.
cn flag
Perhaps related to the relatively recent LDAP binding enforcement. That will cause unencrypted simple binds to fail. You can read about it here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/topic/2020-and-2023-ldap-channel-binding-and-ldap-signing-requirements-for-windows-kb4520412-ef185fb8-00f7-167d-744c-f299a66fc00a https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csoonline.com/article/568813/how-to-fix-insecure-ldap-binds-to-prevent-exposed-windows-admin-credentials.html/amp/
Parallax Abstraction avatar
nc flag
I took a look over that link and it could be related, but I'm not certain it is. The issues we're running into don't seem related, but there's also a lot in there that could be relevant. I'm trying some suggestions that have come up around that and we'll see what happens. I'll make sure to report any results.
user1686 avatar
fr flag
What do you specify as a "bind DN" – the user's actual DN (CN=foo), or their AD UPN ([email protected]), or their NT name (DOM\user), or just the bare username, or something else entirely?
I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.