similar to: samba3 to Win 2003, signing mandatory but disabled?

Hi, I was trying smbmount (SuSE's samba-client-3.0.20b-3.4). The mount command replied: cli_negprot: SMB signing is mandatory and we have disabled it. 9451: protocol negotiation failed SMB connection failed No I'd suggest to change the message at least: It's unclear who "we" is: The Samba Team, the client, or the server The server is a "Windows 2003 server",

Hi! I'm trying to connect to a share on a Windows 2003 server with samba 3.0.0. I have edited smb.conf as was instructed in chapter 7 of the Samba-HOWTO-Collection to include the following: client use spnego = yes When I try to connect to the server, I get the following error: cli_negprot: SMB signing is mandatory and we have disabled it 2355: protocol negotiation failed SMB connection

I have encountered this error: cli_negprot: SMB signing is mandatory and we have disabled it. 26595: protocol negotiation failed SMB connection failed when I am attempting to mount a windows xp machine from a linux machine: mount -t smbfs //machine/share /root/smb_mnt -o username=administrator,password=mypass I have looked through the archives and found the following information concerning this

While attempting to use cifs to mount a win2k3 share, I get this error: [root@dhcp190 root]# mount //win2k3/data -t cifs -o username=administrator /mnt/smbfs cli_negprot: SMB signing is mandatory and we have disabled it. 2687: protocol negotiation failed SMB connection failed Where exactly do I enable smb signing? kernel 2.6.5 + samba 3.0.3

hello everyone, the old problem persists :X I'm currently running Novell Linux Desktop 9 (SP2) featuring a 2.6.5series kernel. Smbclient (3.0.14a-0.4-SUSE) seems to support signing negotiation.. at least the following command works just fine: smbclient -k -L //hostname turning signing off manually (-S off) ends up in the common error message cli_negprot: SMB signing is mandatory and we have

I have not tried with a Samba 4.x DC. As far as I know Samba 4.x does not have this limitation. On 01/06/15 04:10, ali-reza.fahimi at schneider-electric.com wrote: > > Does this mean that we cannot use mandatory server signing in Samba 3? > What about the later versions? The problem is that lack of server > signing is considered a security hole. > > > Inactive hide

The wiki page settings control a netlogon security setting. I guess the "server signing" parameter applies to all the other traffic. But my guess - and it is only a guess- is that requiring server signing is causing the netlogon process to break since it does not support signing. The e-mail chain you reference does not make it clear if the samba instance is a domain

We are using samba on RedHat 8.8. The latest samba version available for RHEL8 is samba 4.17.5 Since samba is updated to 4.17.5 from 4.16.4 the "server signing = mandatory" config option seems to be broken. Nessus scans reports a vulnerability on server signing not required: SMB Signing not required VULNERABILITY MEDIUM PLUGIN ID57608 Description Signing is not required on the remote

Hello, I have updated my system to Debian 12 with Samba 4.17.12, but the problem with performance still exist. On the Samba page there is a note in the CVE-2016-2114 description: "Note that the default for server roles other than active directory domain controller, is "off" because of performance reasons." https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2016-2114.html Does it mean

Using Samba 3.0.9-Debian on Linspire 5.0.59. Server running is a Windows 2003 Server. I am trying to mount a share on the server but getting error message: cli_negprot: SMB signing is mandatory and we have disabled it. 8919: protocol negotiation failed SMB connection failed In smb.conf I have changed setting "server signing = no" to "server signing = required" but

Hello, I'm experiencing very slow read/write performance, about 20 MB/s, on Samba share when I configure the "server signing" option as "mandatory". Once I set "server signing" to "default", the read/write performance returns to average speed about 800 MB/s. I am using Samba 4.9.4 on server with Intel Xeon CPU E5-2690 0 @ 2.90GHz (32 threads) and 10 Gbit

Hi, If I update the Samba server version to the latest one, set the "server signing = default" parameter and the "server role = standalone" parameter, will my server be vulnerable to CVE-2016-2114? Thank you. pon., 16 pa? 2023 o 16:50 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> napisa?(a): > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:13:49 +0200 > Adam B?aszczykowski via

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 12:02:20 +0200 Adam B?aszczykowski via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Ok thank you. > So, Is my file server with Samba 4.17.12 vulnerable to CVE-2016-2114 > if it is not a DC server? > > To be clear, I don't use any Active Directory domain controller in my > network. Lets see if I can paraphrase the documentation for CVE-2016-2014

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:13:49 +0200 Adam B?aszczykowski via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hello, > I'm experiencing very slow read/write performance, about 20 MB/s, on > Samba share when I configure the "server signing" option as > "mandatory". Once I set "server signing" to "default", the read/write > performance returns

When I enable server signing in Samba (server signing = mandatory), I can still join a Window 7 machine to the domain but I am no longer able to log on into the domain using a domain user. Is this normal? I am using Samba 3.6.3 on Linux 12.04. Is there anything that needs to be configured on the Windows machine? Thanks, Ali

Hello, Has anyone had a chance to review this question? Thank you, Bill ----- Forwarded by Bill Chockla/Durham/Contr/IBM on 09/26/2012 10:04 AM ----- From: Bill Chockla/Durham/Contr/IBM To: samba at samba.org, Date: 09/10/2012 12:52 PM Subject: Connection fails with Server/Client Signing = Mandatory Hello, When I add "server signing = mandatory" to my smb.conf file (AIX V6.1,

Ok thank you. So, Is my file server with Samba 4.17.12 vulnerable to CVE-2016-2114 if it is not a DC server? To be clear, I don't use any Active Directory domain controller in my network. Best regards. Adam Blaszczykowski pon., 23 pa? 2023 o 10:20 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> napisa?(a): > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:54:47 +0200 > Adam B?aszczykowski via samba

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:54:47 +0200 Adam B?aszczykowski via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hello, > I have updated my system to Debian 12 with Samba 4.17.12, but the > problem with performance still exist. > On the Samba page there is a note in the CVE-2016-2114 description: > "Note that the default for server roles other than active directory > domain

Hello, When I add "server signing = mandatory" to my smb.conf file (AIX V6.1, 6100-04-11-1140 running Samba v3.6.5) that has "encrypt passwords = no", my windows client no longer can connect. It fails with system error 64. The windows system is running XP vers 2002 with service pack 3. The security settings are set to: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications

Hello Samba-Specialists, which smb.conf-options do I have to set to get access to a Samba-Share from a Windows7-Machine, if the Windows7-Machine is very restrictive configured regarding 'smb-signing'? Windows7-Configuration: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (if server agrees): Enabled Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always): Enabled