Meike Stone
2019-Feb-04 17:44 UTC
[Samba] hostname is missing in the output from "smbstatus -b"
Hello dear group,
we have migrated our Samba server from version 3.6 to Samba 4.6.
Everyting is working fine, but I have seen one difference in the
output from "smbstatus -b".
The hostname in the output is no longer displayed (see examples below)
1) The hostname must come from Session setup or similar, because we
don't have any
name resolution for clients.
2) The hostname from the clients is usefull for us, because a lot of
clients are behind a NAT-Gateway and comes with one IP ( in example
the 192.168.12.30) ! In the old version I could see from witch host
each user came.
In the new version, I only see the IP address two times.
Does anybody can help me?
Thanks Meike!
===================================
Samba version 3.6:
PID Username Group Machine
-------------------------------------------------------------------
11243 smith users pc023 (192.168.17.201)
56898 clay users ts022 (192.168.12.30)
46461 miller users pc132 (192.168.17.223)
44414 stone users pc342 (192.168.11.167)
33918 taylor users pc020 (192.168.1.103)
73898 einstein users ts020 (192.168.12.30)
91923 bennett users w7pc100 (192.168.12.30)
===================================
Samba version 4.6:
PID Username Group Machine
Protocol Version Encryption Signing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9477 smith users 192.168.17.201
(ipv4:192.168.17.201:53610) NT1 -
-
36623 clay users 192.168.12.30
(ipv4:1192.168.12.30:56167) NT1 -
-
31722 miller users 192.168.17.223
(ipv4:192.168.17.223:49988) NT1 -
-
25303 stone users 192.168.11.167
(ipv4:192.168.11.167:49821) NT1 -
-
23302 taylor users 192.168.1.103
(ipv4:192.168.1.103:52405) NT1 -
-
75323 einstein users 192.168.12.30
(ipv4:192.168.12.30:23452) NT1 -
-
79443 bennett users 192.168.12.30
(ipv4:192.168.12.30:32112) NT1 -
-
Rowland Penny
2019-Feb-04 18:34 UTC
[Samba] hostname is missing in the output from "smbstatus -b"
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:44:57 +0100 Meike Stone via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:> Hello dear group, > > we have migrated our Samba server from version 3.6 to Samba 4.6. > > Everyting is working fine, but I have seen one difference in the > output from "smbstatus -b". > > The hostname in the output is no longer displayed (see examples below) > 1) The hostname must come from Session setup or similar, because we > don't have any > name resolution for clients. > 2) The hostname from the clients is usefull for us, because a lot of > clients are behind a NAT-Gateway and comes with one IP ( in example > the 192.168.12.30) ! In the old version I could see from witch host > each user came. > > In the new version, I only see the IP address two times. >This may be an artefact of turning off NTLMv1, try adding 'ntlm auth yes' to your smb.conf and restarting Samba. If this cures your problem, then you have to decide if you can run with an insecure set up. I would also urge you to consider upgrading again, but this time to AD. Rowland
Kris Lou
2019-Feb-04 18:58 UTC
[Samba] hostname is missing in the output from "smbstatus -b"
This also might be "hostname lookups = no" (by default). But that also probably depends on some sort of name resolution (DNS), and you say that you don't have name resolution for clients. Kris Lou klou at themusiclink.net On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:34 AM Rowland Penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:44:57 +0100 > Meike Stone via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > Hello dear group, > > > > we have migrated our Samba server from version 3.6 to Samba 4.6. > > > > Everyting is working fine, but I have seen one difference in the > > output from "smbstatus -b". > > > > The hostname in the output is no longer displayed (see examples below) > > 1) The hostname must come from Session setup or similar, because we > > don't have any > > name resolution for clients. > > 2) The hostname from the clients is usefull for us, because a lot of > > clients are behind a NAT-Gateway and comes with one IP ( in example > > the 192.168.12.30) ! In the old version I could see from witch host > > each user came. > > > > In the new version, I only see the IP address two times. > > > > This may be an artefact of turning off NTLMv1, try adding 'ntlm auth > yes' to your smb.conf and restarting Samba. If this cures your problem, > then you have to decide if you can run with an insecure set up. > > I would also urge you to consider upgrading again, but this time to AD. > > Rowland > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Meike Stone
2019-Feb-04 19:32 UTC
[Samba] hostname is missing in the output from "smbstatus -b"
Hello Rowland, thanks for answering so fast.> > > > we have migrated our Samba server from version 3.6 to Samba 4.6. > > > > Everyting is working fine, but I have seen one difference in the > > output from "smbstatus -b". > > > > The hostname in the output is no longer displayed (see examples below) > > 1) The hostname must come from Session setup or similar, because we > > don't have any > > name resolution for clients. > > 2) The hostname from the clients is usefull for us, because a lot of > > clients are behind a NAT-Gateway and comes with one IP ( in example > > the 192.168.12.30) ! In the old version I could see from witch host > > each user came. > > > > In the new version, I only see the IP address two times. > > > > This may be an artefact of turning off NTLMv1,So there is nowedays no possibility to track, from witch client name the connection comes (behind a NAT Gateway)?> try adding 'ntlm auth > yes' to your smb.conf and restarting Samba. If this cures your problem, > then you have to decide if you can run with an insecure set up.This option is turned on already. I know, this is a total ugly, insecure setup, but we have to run a single samba for W2k3 Terminal Servers and Windows XP-Clients (max protocol = NT1 ntlm auth = yes, backend ldap). That is a "border server" for exchanging documents between two untrusted companies. ( I would love to turn off the server immediately, but I can't)> I would also urge you to consider upgrading again, but this time to AD.(We have running a AD internaly ...) Thanks Meike