similar to: Potential contribution: FUSE client w/ SMB3 encryption support

Hi Aurélien, is there some documentation around where I can read about that? Where can I find the information, that I need Kernel 4.11 or above to get DFS with SMB2.0 / 2.1 / 3.0 and above working? Regards, Christian Am 12.06.2017 um 12:46 schrieb Aurélien Aptel: > Hi Christian, > > Christian Garling via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> a few days ago we

Hello everyone, I'm trying to mount a CIFS share served by Windows 10 Samba with encryption. On the Windows server side, I made a regular share and told Windows via Powershell command Set-SmbServerConfiguration -EncryptData 1 to encrypt the data if possible, and via Set-SmbServerConfiguration -RejectUnencryptedAccess 1 to reject unencrypted connections instead of negotiating an unencrypted

Hi, is there an option in samba 4.1.x to have an smbd require SMB3 encrypted transport on share level? I can't seem to find anything like it. Thanks, -- Michael Weiser science + computing ag Senior Systems Engineer Geschaeftsstelle Duesseldorf Faehrstrasse 1 phone: +49 211 302 708 32 D-40221 Duesseldorf fax: +49 211 302 708 50

Hi all, My server machine is running samba version 4.4.4 on Linux with 'smb encryption = mandatory' option. My client is a Ubuntu 16.10 Linux machine. I am looking for a way to mount the encrypted samba share on the Linux client machine. I noticed that mount.cifs does not support encryption but smbclient does with an -e flag, however it seems to only be usable in a ftp-like interface.

Dear all, what is about the support for POSIX ACL in Samba protocol implementation of SMB2 and SMB3? >From what I extracted from SNIA and SambaXP developer conference talks and as well as the official Samba Wiki, support for POSIX ACL in SMB2 and SMB3 has been completely abandonned. Am I right? If so, is there any other possibility to allow Linux Clients to natively access access control lists

Hi All, The man page for smb.conf says that 'client max protocol = default' is the same as 'client max protocol = NT1' for the HEAD samba version. Is there some reason I should not change that to SMB3? Thanks! Chad.

Hi, I am running samba-4.1.4 on my Fedora OS. I have provided the "client max protocol = SMB3" and "server max protocol = SMB3" parameters in smb.conf file I'm able to get only SMB2.1 packets using wireshark after fileshare access from my windows 7 machine. And not SMB3 packets. SMB2->NegotiateProtocol Response 0x0202 0x0210 Samba-4.1.4 is supporting SMB3 also. So

Hi, I want to use the SMB3 POSIX extensions in the latest Samba (with SMB3.1.1, vers=3.1.1). By following the user manual, I have added the "posix" mount option when mounting, but it shows the following error messages. Error messages: [xxxxx] CIFS VFS: Server does not support mounting with posix SMB3.11 extensions. [xxxxx] CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -95 Mount option:

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 09:03:41AM -0800, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: > > Check out the latest cifsfs code. I think Steve > and Aurelian and Ronnie added an ioctl for this. > > I'm here at Vault in Boston with Steve, I'll ask > him :-). Steve says there are two utilities in Linux, getcifsacl and setcifsacl that use a custom ioctl inside the Linux cifsfs kernel

Hi all, Quick question - does Samba server still support Unix extensions when connecting over SMB3? My Linux client recently got upgraded to a CIFS module version that uses SMB3 by default, and since then I lost the ability to create symlinks on my CIFS shares. Running "mount" shows the share mounted with the "nounix" option. If I follow the advice in dmesg and add the

Hello, How secure is SMB3 over Internet? I see that Microsoft Azure is doing SMB3 shares over internet so they seem to think it's secure. Does the SAMBA team recommend this type of scenario OR do they recommend instead running it over a SSH tunnel/VPN?

I know SMB2 support was added for the smbclient in samba 4.1.0, but was SMB3 support also added ? Is there a way to just make smbclient ? Mike

Hello.. My server have this settings in [global] section: max protocol = smb3 min protocol = smb2 When I try connect to server using my clients (Centos 7.3/Ubuntu 16.04) I can't because clients still trying NT1. I must explicity add in smb.conf on clients the option ' client max protocol = smb3' and the connections works again. The question is: If I have defined the min and max

ACL management can be done for SMB2/SMB3 ACLs with two common tools depending on your preference. smbcacls (somewhat similar to using cacls.exe or icacls.exe in Windows but specifying the UNC name rather than a local path name). smbcacls sets up and tears down a network connection each time it is run and uses Samba user space code. or setcifsacl/getcifsacl (which calls cifs.ko to access the

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:29:51AM +0200, Michael Adam via samba wrote: > On 2016-08-31 at 08:13 +0000, zhengbin.08747 at h3c.com wrote: > > When carring out the test, I have a wireshark process run. It is confirmed that protocol smb3 is used. In the tree connection phase, server's response to client claims that it does not support DFS/Continuous Availability. > > I'm

hi Michael Adam: Thanks for you work on samba. Here I am looking for some advice and your help. I have been stuck in continuous availability of samba 4.3.9 for two weeks. Continuous availability in SMB3 is an attractive feature and I am strugling to enable it. smb.conf, ctdb.conf are attached. Cluster file system is cephfs and mount to /CephStorage client: Windows 8 Pro root at node0:~# samba

The SMB3 POSIX extensions is different from the old Unix extensions. The Unix extensions can only support vers=1.0, but the new SMB3 POSIX extensions can support SMB3.1.1, vers=3.1.1. You can check this 2018 presentation slides: https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/SDC/2018/presentations/SMB/Steve_French_SMB311.pdf Page 12 shows that POSIX extensions has been added. Page 22 shows that SMB3

## QUESTION I am sharing a 120GB folder with lots of files via Samba on a LAN (1Gbps connection). 1) Doing an `ls -lR` on the server (on this folder) takes ~32 seconds, compared with **72 minutes** on the client. Is this difference in performance expected (due to network and protocol overhead)? 2) While the client is executing an `ls -lR`, one smbd process on the server uses about 30-40% of a

> > Quick question - does Samba server still support Unix extensions when > > connecting over SMB3? > > FYI, when we do finalize the UNIX extensions, at least for > the Samba implementation, we're not going to allow clients > to create "real" symlinks on the server - only SMB-followable > symlinks. Allowing clients to create real server symlinks as > in

Thanks for the first reply, Jeremy. What about the (future) implementation of RichACL? Will there be any native Linux Client support along with the SMB2/SMB3 protocol? I know, there is a native implemenation for RichACLs in ext4 FS. Unfortunately, smbcals is not a native Linux ACL Tool and has a very unhandy syntax. I just tested some days ago. ;-) I am looking for a solution that allows the