I apologize for posting in the wrong list (and for posting this again - I'm doing so to allow the thread to continue on the proper list)..
I suspect that it will. The mschap module should also pass the Name field when calling ntlm_auth, too. And maybe print a warning if the fields are different.
I constructed a test program by extracting challenge_hash from rlm_mschap.c (and all supporting functions). I then extracted the peer challenge, authenticator challenge and NT-Response from the debug output of a failed request (User-Name was all lowercase, Name field was mixed case). I called challenge_hash with the all lowercase userid (to ensure it generated the same challenge as the failed request) - the challenge was identical. I then generated another challenge with the userid from the Name field in the response. Then, I executed ntlm_auth manually with the original challenge and the new challenge. The original failed (as I expected) and, low and behold, the new challenge (created using the Name field's userid) succeeded! I will now proceed to create a patch. I was planning to do a strncasecmp to ensure the only difference between the userid part of User-Name and the userid part of the Name field is case. If there are non-case differences, do you think a RLM_REJECT is in order or do you think it should just warn and use whatever is present (I can't think of a normal case where this would occur, but if you think this is better, then I would definitely use the Name field for the username parameter too)? I was thinking of rejecting the request, in this case, so this couldn't be used to bypass authorization. Interestingly, I copied the challenge and response from a successful and failed attempt and manually called ntlm_auth varying the case of the --username parameter and it didn't affect the results. In other words, --username=MYUSER or --username=myuser or --username=MyuseR all behave the same if the --challenge and --nt-response are correct).