similar to: DOS client - basic redirector

> It turns out that the MS Network Client for DOS Basic Redirector _always_ > sends a 24 byte password. So, I guessed at encryption, got 'libdes', > recompiled my smbd (again), found a 'spare' Silicon Graphics server and > installed Encryption on it. (ENCRYPTION.txt is very good). Yep, good guess. All encrypted passwords in SMB are 24 bytes long. The "basic

Hello, I finally found a solution to allow basic MS DOS client 3.0 redirector to work with Samba. I'm sure you'll find it ugly, but it works. Under CORE protocol, the $"#&^ MS client sends unencrypted passwords to the samba server (maybe there is no support of encryption in CORE, I don't know). So as my clients are either W95, WfW, NT or DOS machines, I simply remove the

CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2010:0460 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2010-0460.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename ) x86_64: c268c72e77eb82acd082eed5b1ccf341 kmod-spice-usb-redirector-4.5-2.el5_5.x86_64.rpm 2d7522f13423c046574e79f47b3fdf2f

CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2010:0460 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2010-0460.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename ) i386: 1468f8b5a570b76cf202d7890d0b5dab kmod-spice-usb-redirector-4.5-2.el5_5.i386.rpm 27073b872577aa31c7229702cd0c118c spice-usb-redirector-4.5-2.el5_5.i386.rpm

Hello, I recently plan to switch my 200 PC (W95 or DOS)+ 10 SUN workstations network to use Linux + Samba. It was previsouly using Netware 4.1 (not too bad) and Netware NFS (a nightmare !) My current configuration is made of 4 identical machines - bi-PII 300MHz + 128 Mo - 2*9 Go UW SCSI with soft raid level 1 - Linux 2.0.33 - Samba 1.9.18p7 Currently, this configuration is

If you have the need to implement 5 asterisk boxes each one handling only 100 ulaw calls (same dialplan,etc.) logging to a six MYSQL server , what do you use in *front* of the asterisks? Codecs, hardware,etc is not important. The thing that Im trying to figure out is how do I present the asterisk servers to a bunch of phones and/or FXStoSIP boxes. a sip proxy is not the solution because the sip

Hi, I've the following error when I want to create a conditionnal redirector in samba 4 : " server complex operation 'IpValidate' not implemented  " Version : Version 4.6.7-Ubuntu Not using bind9 but Samba 4 DNS internal Must I user bind 9 ? My goal is to create un approbation between AD2016 et samba 4. Regard -- *Hervé* *HÉNOCH* *Responsable informatique* Tél. :

Gregory Hosler <greg@camelot.eno.ericsson.se> wrote: > Everything was running smoothly, and then I applied the solaris "y2k" patches. > Now, most accesses to samba will hang for a minute or 2, before completing. In > the event log I see messages like: > > The redirector has times out a request to <server name> > > This did not used to happen.

I am running samba 1.9.18p3 on Solaris 2.5.1 The clients are NT 4.0 sp3 Everything was running smoothly, and then I applied the solaris "y2k" patches. Now, most accesses to samba will hang for a minute or 2, before completing. In the event log I see messages like: The redirector has times out a request to <server name> This did not used to happen. This is very puzzling,

thubert@nv.blm.gov wrote: > > Since installing 2.0.3 on an AIX platform and using the PDC for > authentication, our BDC logs are filling up with the following error: > > "The redirector received an SMB that was too short" > > Our smb.conf is minimal in nature and we are unsure where to search for > the problems or solution. I have fixed this in the 2.0.4

Hi, I am running Samba 2.0.4b under Solaris 2.5.1 on a SPARC20. I have several NT users accessing the system and a few are getting redirect errors. Under the event viewer, NT reports "The redirector received an SMB that was too short." The errors occur upon accessing the file system. It's a new one on me and I'm not sure where to begin troubleshooting. Any ideas? Thanks.

I found a post from a year ago which matches my current situation almost exactly, except that we are using samba 2.09. Anyone resolve this yet? Here's the previous text... *********************************** I'm running NT 4.0 Terminal Server (Service Pack 4) with Citrix MetaFrame 1.8 on a PC, and Samba 2.0.3 on an HP-UX box. We've been having occasional problems with files not

Hello, I got a question concerning SAMBA 1.9.18p7 and Microsoft Developper Studio (respectively: Copy'ing files in the same directory does not work)! Samba is running on a Linux-PC, clients are some Windows NT 4 SP3 PC's (already including the "EnablePlainTextPassword" - Entry in the registry). As some of our developpers are using Microsofts Developper Studio 97 they would

Subject: Wildcard '*.' matches inproper files (for SAMBA DOS clients) The problem does not appear when using W9x/NT clients. Testing environment: samba: 1.9.18p10i (compiled), 2.0.5a(binary distrib), 2.0.6(compiled) on Linux RedHat 6.0 and Solaris 2.5 smb.conf: | |[global] | workgroup = WORKG | server string = Samba %v | encrypt passwords = Yes | socket

We have just upgraded from Samba 1.9.18p7 to 2.0.6. We are now encountering this problem with 2.0.6 which was discussed back in 1998. We never had the problem with 1.9.18p7. We haven't changed the smb.conf as we are just using Samba in basic fileserver mode. Is there a change we need to make to get rid of this message and restriction occuring? Andrew 1998 Discusion: >I have a

Hello Jeremy, > OH - that's *really* interesting ! I wonder how it is > changing the SMB3+ redirector to do this ? It looks like applications could do something and give a hint to SMB3+ redirector, so far not quite sure how to make it, per process monitor (procmon) could show that write I/O size seems could be pass from the application layers,

Bobby Eshleman wrote: > We're testing usage of vsock as a way to redirect guest-local UDS > requests to the host and this patch series greatly improves the > performance of such a setup. > > Compared to copying packets via userspace, this improves throughput by > 121% in basic testing. > > Tested as follows. > > Setup: guest unix dgram sender -> guest vsock

Hello, I'm new to this list. The NT folk here, are concerned about some timeout errors and stuff that appear in their event viewer. They are building a case to convince management that unless these "samba" errors are fixed, we should move to NT file shares. I think this is a bad idea. Can anyone help me out here. We are running samba 2.0.6 (1st msg) and 2.0.5a (2nd err msg)

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 03:19:59PM +0200, Ralph Boehme wrote: >On 8/21/23 11:53, Jones Syue ??? via samba wrote: >>>OH - that's *really* interesting ! I wonder how it is >>>changing the SMB3+ redirector to do this ? >> >>It looks like applications could do something and give a hint to SMB3+ >>redirector, so far not quite sure how to make it, >>per

Let me expand a bit, I might have expressed myself poorly. If there is a good reason for a warning I want a warning, and because I take them seriously I don't want my console cluttered with those that can be avoided. I strongly believe we should strive to make our code silent, and I like my console to tell me only what I need to know. In my opinion many warnings would be better designed as