Dear Samba-istas, Thanks for your work on a remarkable system. I'm having a problem dealing with a very simple system that I can't seem to figure out. I have a disk being shared from a Windows ME machine (I know, but I can't change that part) that I want to mount on various linux machines. I have a redhat 7.3 system that uses smbmount "Version 2.2.7-security-rollup-fix" which works fine. When I try to mount the share, it warns about "Called name not present", but then prompts for a password (the windows machine has "share" security, not user), and the share mounts just fine. Trying the same thing on my debian unstable system using smbmount "Version 3.0.0beta2+3.0.0rc1-1 for Debian" I get the same warning, but when I give the password, it reports Server requested LANMAN password but 'client use lanman auth' is disabled 6436: tree connect failed: SUCCESS - 0 SMB connection failed So, reading the documentation, it looks as if I ought to put 'lanman auth = yes' in the globals section of my smb.conf. I do this, and then run testparm, and a strange thing happens. It now reports a 'lanman auth' value, but it is 'no'! See the smb.conf and testparm results below. The documentation doesn't say much about this, and Googling both the web and relevant usenet groups didn't turn up anything about this problem. Any ideas as to (a) what might be wrong, and (b) a workaround? I'd be glad to provide more information if I left out anything important. Thanks very much! Larry.hunter@uchsc.edu basement:~# cat /etc/samba/smb.conf # Global parameters [global] workgroup = 180GLENCOE domain master = no lanman auth = yes hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 216.241.42.72 216.241.42.73 216.241.42.74 hosts deny = 0.0.0.0/0 [ipc$] path = /opt writeable = yes guest ok = yes [opt] path = /opt writeable = yes guest ok = yes basement:~# testparm Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf Processing section "[ipc$]" Processing section "[opt]" Loaded services file OK. Server role: ROLE_STANDALONE Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions # Global parameters [global] workgroup = 180GLENCOE client lanman auth = No client plaintext auth = No domain master = No hosts allow = 127.0.0.1, 216.241.42.72, 216.241.42.73, 216.241.42.74 hosts deny = 0.0.0.0/0 [ipc$] path = /opt read only = No guest ok = Yes [opt] path = /opt read only = No guest ok = Yes basement:~# basement:~# smbmount //pc/music /mnt/music Password: Server requested LANMAN password but 'client use lanman auth' is disabled 6529: tree connect failed: SUCCESS - 0 SMB connection failed basement:~#
Gerald (Jerry) Carter
2003-Sep-05 04:11 UTC
[Samba] can't change "client use lanman auth"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Larry Hunter wrote:> Server requested LANMAN password but 'client use lanman auth' is disabled > 6436: tree connect failed: SUCCESS - 0 > SMB connection failed > > So, reading the documentation, it looks as if I ought to put 'lanman > auth = yes' in the globals section of my smb.conf. I do this, and > then run testparm, and a strange thing happens. It now reports a > 'lanman auth' value, but it is 'no'! See the smb.conf and testparm > results below.We're working on this. Set 'client ntlmv2 auth = no' in the [global] section and this should give you a workaround for the time being. cheers, jerry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard ------------------------- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team ---------------------- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key ---- http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE/WAzaIR7qMdg1EfYRAhLgAKCDlt31HhyC180nSckv4AelLp+B5ACcCo1T DObQIsh/ckPRRVUbnqTqmfg=wKaQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Maybe Matching Threads
- Can't mount dir on hdb1
- R- exp(-1000) ? - how to get R to give me an actual answer ?
- couple questions about supported UPSes and politics of purchase
- Re: Curmudgeoning (was Re: Problems with writing, Dual Layer DVD)
- is a self signed certificate always invalid the first time?