Samba on MX19.2[RESOLVED]

[GuiGuy]

.........
No one should ever use NT1 (SMB1) ever again.[/size][/b]

It has been depreciated from Windows and Samba for a very big and good reason.
It is a huge vulnerability and exploit vector.

The actual and proper solution is out there though... we just have to find it.

I have now deleted the offending line.

Hope somebody finds a solution - I have tried and failed .

[GuiGuy]

BTW I do not use Windows10, only XP and 98se.

GuiGuy, is there a reason you're running these legacy systems?

If it is to use legacy Windows applications, have you attempted to use them with WINE?

I have tried W10 and hated it.
I do use W7 sometimes.
I have used WINE in the past but it's never been as smooth and easy as the real thing,
so why bother?

[SwampRabbit]

So this is kind of forum I just entered. Understood.

This all happened incidentally when samba decided to change the client max from NT1 in previous versions to SMB3_11. That messed up gvfs.

You just entered a forum and in your first post told users to enable one of the worst things to enable on a system.

No reason to get defensive about it, like I said the proper solution exists to fix the issues... lets work towards that.

Samba dropped NT (SMB1) because it is one of the 3 primary reasons all the ransomware of the last 5yrs even existed (yes, even the Linux variants)
Microsoft dropped it for the same reason too.

It doesn't matter what issues are caused by this with Samba or gvfs, bottom line the risk is not worth the reward.

[GuiGuy]

Now on MX18.3: samba works without a hitch - same machine and SSD.

[Morbius1]

Based on the advice offered in this thread you should stop using it immediately.

That uses samba 4.5x. If you do a man smb.conf and search for client max protocol you will note:

The value default refers to NT1.

The older version of MX works because the default is already set at NT1.

[tony37]

You just entered a forum and in your first post told users to enable one of the worst things to enable on a system.

Just saying, but Dedoimedo actually suggests doing this too: see link in post #1.

[GuiGuy]

Back on 19.2....

This argument about the added line seems pointless to me because I tried
adding it and it did not change the samba defect I was talking about.

[Morbius1]

Well you may not have rebooted and besides you have bigger problems if your server is WinXP and Win98 - sheesh.

You gonna have to drop down authentication protocols as well:

Code: Select all

client lanman auth = yes

There's probably a bunch of other stuff I no longer remember about vinatge Windows.

[GuiGuy]

In other news, Morbius1 has just had his forum account deleted at his own request.
Can't say I will miss him.

[asqwerth]

I think he tried to be helpful, which is fine. However he then got upset when SwampRabbit disagreed with him.

In a forum, people will disagree with one another or have different views (in this case it's security vs expediency, I think).

One should not immediately jump to the conclusion that it's a personal attack on you.

If everyone left the forum in a huff the minute people disagreed with or corrected them , there would be no one left!