MX Linux Forum

Samba does not work for me in MX19.2 - I have tried editing the configuration file
as suggested by dedo'
https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/ubu ... hares.html
but still get no joy in "Windows Network".

Has anybody managed to get Samba to work in MX19.2?

yes, but I have to direct address my shares, even from windows.

\\servername\sharename

I didn't do anything special, just used the usual samba config tool. the only thing that doesn't work is browsing for the share, but that hasn't worked for me for a while (I blame windows 10).

I had the same problem, but was helped here, and now have as much of it working as I need. I had to enter the following in a terminal as a one-off:
and after a reboot I could connect to my Linux machine from a Windows one.

Chris

Hello, have you tried enabling Samba 1.x in the Windows Programs and Features?

Step 1
Go to settings

Step 2
Click on Apps

Step 3
Click Programs and Features

Step 4
Click Turn Windows features on or off

Step 5
Check SMS 1.0/CIFI File Sharing Support

Thanks, gentlemen.

My complaint is that "Windows Shares" draws a total blank - it
does not even see my other Linuxes which are running.

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

I can browse and connect to all my running machines from both XP and 98se:
so I believe the trouble is down to MX19.2's defective Samba.

I don't think this is a defective samba. I think this is a defective gvfs backend.

I would be willing to bet if you ran the following command it would list your servers and their shares: My suggestion:

Edit /etc/samba/smb.conf and right under the workgroup = WORKGROUP line add this one: Then restart smbd: In some cases you may need to reboot.

Morbius1 wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:02 pm My suggestion:

Edit /etc/samba/smb.conf and right under the workgroup = WORKGROUP line add this one:

Code: Select all

client max protocol = NT1

crborga wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:49 am Hello, have you tried enabling Samba 1.x in the Windows Programs and Features?

No one should ever use NT1 (SMB1) ever again.

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.

GuiGuy wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:58 am 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?

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

The problem here is two-fold:

By default the "client min protocol" is already set to "core" in the version of samba you all are using so that's even worse.

From man smb.conf for "client min protocol":

Default: client min protocol = CORE

The second problem is that the "fix" to this problem was for the good folks over at gvfs central to force gvfsd-smb-browse to use smb1 in order to get the list of workgroups and servers in newer versions.

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

SwampRabbit wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:13 pm .........
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 .

SwampRabbit wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:29 pm

GuiGuy wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:58 am 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?

Morbius1 wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:31 pm 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.

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

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.

SwampRabbit wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:48 pm 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.

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.

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

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

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!

He should have taken Groucho Marx's advise and stuck around longer then leave in a minute and a huff. (He probably isn't aware that SwampRabbit's day job is in the cyber security field.)

I follow the samba discussions when I can because I too use samba in 18.3 in a number of my machines. I appreciate swamprabbits perspective but I also have a use case that I really want to continue using.

My reason for posting this is to try to understand the issue to its logical conclusion. If I read swamprabbit correctly, he's saying virtually any linux still running the older version of samba included in 18.3 or any version of "stretch" (or before?) ought to be considered a major hazard, and the implication is that all those installations are major security risks that should be taken down.

Am i reading that correctly? Should, for example, MX consider posting a warning that all the existing installations of 18.3, probably many or most of which have samba installed, should be removed from service or at least samba deinstalled from them?


EDIT: I take it that this is different from the SAMBACRY issue discussed here: https://www.tecmint.com/fix-sambacry-vu ... -in-linux/ Or is it? I can't tell if the patches that apparently addressed sambacry fixed this issue or not, but I am gathering from reading swamprabbit that we're talking about different problems. Presumably the issue swamprabbit is raising is something that has not been addressed by Debian's ongoing security updates to stretch.

@nathan2423
Very good question, Nathan: I hope it will be answered soon.

nathan2423 wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:20 am... If I read swamprabbit correctly, he's saying virtually any linux still running the older version of samba included in 18.3 or any version of "stretch" (or before?) ought to be considered a major hazard, and the implication is that all those installations are major security risks that should be taken down.

Am i reading that correctly? Should, for example, MX consider posting a warning that all the existing installations of 18.3, probably many or most of which have samba installed, should be removed from service or at least samba deinstalled from them?

No, I said "No one should ever use NT1 (SMB1) ever again.", not that no one should ever use the version of Samba in MX-18.3. There is nothing wrong with still using MX-18.3 and the version of Samba provided as long as you don't use SMB1. If there was still cause for concern, don't you think Debian (all the derivative distros, including MX) would do something more already?
You don't need to use SMB1 unless you are also using a legacy OS or application that you probably shouldn't be using anyway. So why use SMB1 if you don't have to, maybe because you like to live dangerously?

The issue was that we had two newly registered users pop into a thread and tell someone to enable SMB1 to fix their problem. GuiGuy didn't even say they were using older versions of Windows yet when the first user suggested it. Maybe they were trying to help, but telling someone to use a file sharing protocol which has been depreciated at great lengths is not the right answer, until it is proven as the only answer.

It wasn't proven to be the only answer and GuiGuy even said it didn't fix the problem anyway, two wrongs don't make a right.

GuiGuy wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:30 pm 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.

Bad attempt at an analogy time....

Its no different than someone telling you:
"hey I want to park my car in my garage, but my garage door opener doesn't work anymore"

And a person standing on the street chiming in and saying:
"the answer is to leave your garage door open all the time"

When the better answer is, get a new garage door opener, or fix the one you have.
IF you can't do the above, then you need to open and close it manually.


I don't want to derail GuiGuy's thread, we should be focusing on helping them get Samba working the way they need and want. IF, that means they need NT1 (SMB1) because they have to use Win XP or 98se, then that is their call. But the next step is to limit use and access, which can be done in Linux, Samba many different ways, maybe even at their network too.

But, I'd personally dump the Win XP and 98se for a lot of reasons instead. And, if there is a solution to get file sharing working without using the almost 30 year old SMB1 protocol, than that is a better solution.

I kinda avoid security related discussions outside of my day job for several reasons:
1) I have enough of it for 18hrs a day, 2) security isn't a matter of yes and no - the if, and, but, why, how, when, use, etc, etc are subjectively important, 3) MX Linux is secure enough to not have to worry about it constantly 4) its usually a circular discussion, 5) people like to mince other peoples' words for kicks

JayM keeps dropping the dime on me though.... I just want to maintain packages and take lots of naps.

GuiGuy, can you tell us a bit more about your systems and what you are trying to accomplish?

- Which systems are the ones that need to "share" files to the others?

- Are the MX-18, MX-19, XP, and 98se systems all separate physical systems that are on all the time?

- Are any of these not used or on all the time (i.e. dual booting, etc)?

- Are any of these virtual systems?

- What exactly are you using the XP and 98se systems for?

- Do you connect to the internet with the XP and 98se systems?

SwampRabbit wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:07 pm GuiGuy, can you tell us a bit more about your systems and what you are trying to accomplish?

- Which systems are the ones that need to "share" files to the others?

Several machines, most of them multiboot windows and Linuxes.

- Are the MX-18, MX-19, XP, and 98se systems all separate physical systems that are on all the time?

They are all separate physical machines.

- Are any of these not used or on all the time (i.e. dual booting, etc)?

None is on all the time (even my main machine is not on all the time).

- Are any of these virtual systems?

No.

- What exactly are you using the XP and 98se systems for?

Old obsolete programs and files.

- Do you connect to the internet with the XP and 98se systems?

No, but they connect to my LAN which connects to internet via DHCP - the dhcp router has its own firewall.

What about the most important question for MX addicts: is it safe to use MX18.3?

Thank you for staying (patiently?) with this thread.

GuiGuy wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:23 pm What about the most important question for MX addicts: is it safe to use MX18.3?

I already answered this, but the answer is YES it is safe.

Kinda funny this would even be asked, but yeah

I'll try to follow up on the basic Samba stuff later, got other things calling for my attention right now.

quick clarification - the samba browsing in the file managers isn't attached to the samba program itself. you don't even need samba enabled to browser shares.

someone said it above that the problem lies in gvfs-backends. I don't know if that's so, but it wouldn't surprise me and maybe we are missing something that lets that browsing for shares that way work. I've always had to direct address my shares though. I just bookmark them.

Thanks for the clarification, DO.
BTW browsing and connection to W98 and XP both work fine from MX18.3,
so 18.3 is my main daily OS until the defect in 19.2 is cured.

Thanks for the clarification, DO.
BTW browsing and connection to W98 and XP both work fine from MX18.3,
so 18.3 is my main daily OS until the defect in 19.2 is cured.

But isn't it working in 18.3 because you're using SMB1, which is what is being discussed as being leaving you open to the hazards? I apologize if I still don't understand swamprabbit's point, but my understanding so far is that 18.3 works because it defaults to SMB1, and SMB1 is the attack vector for the nasty stuff. I am not gathering that anything that was said in the thread implies that use of samba in 18.3 is safe unless you alter the config file in 18.3 to make the minimum samba version to be SMB2. But if you alter the 18.3 config file to require SMB2 as a minimum, then that's going to prevent you from doing what you want to do on 18.3, just as it prevents 19.2 from doing what you want to do.

Again I apologize if I am reading all this incorrectly. Just trying to understand.

If I understand SR's point, he's saying that the weakness is on the Windows machine's end.

You enable smb1 on Windows (because you think that will help your Linux machine get easy access to the Windows machine), and that Windows machine is going to have security holes. That was why he asked GUIGuy if his Windows machines were connected to the internet.

Using the MX machine is not going to give you problems.

For what it's worth using smb1 on windows still doesn't give me browsing.

I'm very interested in getting the secret sauce worked out though

I assume that 98 and XP both use smb1 since I can browse and connect to them from MX18.3.
Perhaps W10 does not let smb1 work even if you enable it?

I am glad I don't use W10 but I understand that MX devs need it because many new MX users
will have it on their machines.

I'm really curious for what obsolete programs someone needs Windows 98. If you don't want to say, no problem, just curious.
Maybe you'll have to live with the fact that at some point, Samba support for these systems from prehistory won't be available anymore.
I still have a Windows XP system here, mostly collecting dust though.

GuiGuy wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:24 pm Perhaps W10 does not let smb1 work even if you enable it?

Acccording to this page, that is exactly correct- Windows 10 does not allow SMB1

https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/09/ ... _one_smb1/

And i can't find the link I saw a moment ago, but seems like I read that Vista was the first to introduce SMB2, and that therefore machines earlier than Vista were never upgraded to have the ability to run SMB2, so it's not like you could get all your older machines on SMB2 as a way of dealing with the problem.

tony37 wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:58 pm I'm really curious for what obsolete programs someone needs Windows 98. If you don't want to say, no problem, just curious.
Maybe you'll have to live with the fact that at some point, Samba support for these systems from prehistory won't be available anymore.
I still have a Windows XP system here, mostly collecting dust though.

win98 and winxp is handy for old games. I've been known to keep them around as well.

dolphin_oracle wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:43 pm win98 and winxp is handy for old games. I've been known to keep them around as well.

ok, but if it'd be just for games, I don't see much need to do samba sharing
but maybe I'm ignorant there too

This problem appears to be a regression in 19.2 from 18.3.
IMO that is sufficient reason to want it fixed.

GuiGuy wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:34 pm This problem appears to be a regression in 19.2 from 18.3.
IMO that is sufficient reason to want it fixed.

I fear for you that developers (not necessarily MX devs, but the developers of Samba) will say that it's actually not regression but progression. A feature, not a bug.

MX 18.3 has Samba 2:4.5.16 and MX 19.2 has 2:4.9.5. So maybe it's just something in the Samba package and not in MX.

Bump, because this serious issue is apparently not getting any attention.

GuiGuy wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:51 am Bump, because this serious issue is apparently not getting any attention.

What issue? You're specific issue with Samba on MX-19 is that you need it to work with Windows XP and 98se correct?

If the only way to do this is to change your local Samba configuration to allow SMB1 capabilities, then do it, it is your choice.

Samba isn't broken (that I know of) in MX-19. Samba not defaulting to allow SMB1 is not a regression, it is a important safety and security choice made by the Samba team.

The issue is you want to use legacy non-supported versions of Windows, you have to change your Samba configs to allow this.

I'm not trying to come off as harsh, but treating this as a MX and Samba issue, when its not. You'll have the same issue running any other distro.

I am sure the web has info on changing the Samba config to allow use of SMB1 and anything else that is needed.