I have had many discussions with Synology about this and other attitudes they
have been displaying in the last few years.
Also if you log into their NAS, using ssh and take a look at some of the
comments that have been added into the "ETC" configs, it makes it very
clear.
They have also been removing any posts relating to methods or help given in the
forums that relate to SAMBA , many posts are now missing links.
It seems they are determined to break interoperability with main line SAMBA
& also MS AD services, instead spinning off a semi functional version that
only works with clients & not other AD's
Specifically they seem to only want it to work with "Synology" type
systems.
They have significant other issues related the integration of Samba & the
underlying file systems, ESP. related to security....
We had a large investment in SYNOLOGY , specifically because it allowed us to
spin up remote offsite offices in many countries at a lower cost, and
integrate basic security services cheaply.
Moving forward, We would expect direct SAMBA compatibility to continue to get
significantly worse.
Regards.
?On 3/7/2023, 10:15 AM, "samba on behalf of Ingo Asche via samba"
<samba-bounces at lists.samba.org <mailto:samba-bounces at
lists.samba.org> on behalf of samba at lists.samba.org <mailto:samba at
lists.samba.org>> wrote:
Mostly you have second what I thought already. At least what they say
about using an old Samba version.
Another thought just accured to me: But why they changed it after three
years the change is already in use. Why now? But as you said, that's
something only Synology can answer.
Regards
Ingo
https://github.com/WAdama <https://github.com/WAdama>
Rowland Penny via samba schrieb am 29.06.2023 um 10:00:>
> My reading of the above (which could be wrong) is:
>
> A respected member of the Samba team decided that using
'lookupsids'
> wasn't required just to find out if the SID was a user or group, other
> Samba team members agreed and the code was altered and backported to a
> couple of earlier versions.
>
> It would seem that synology disagreed with this, possibly because of
> other changes they have made (that is a pure guess) and have reverted
> that change, or to put it another way, they seem to have forked Samba.
> On top of that, they seem to be recommending using old EOL versions of
> Samba, versions that could contain bugs that have been fixed in later
> versions, these 'bugs' could be CVE related.
>
> What conclusions to make from that is up to you, but this just
> confirms what I thought about synology.
>
> Rowland
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
<https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba>