similar to: Difference between share access from Windows and Linux

Hi Travis, are you still there? ;-) How are your Synos do? Do have in the mean time installed the actual SMBService? If you have and have with the actual SMBService the same problem as before the Beta version there is a workaround: In "/usr/local/packages/@appstore/SMBService/usr/lib/samba" you have to change the "libidmap-samba4.so" to the one from the beta version,

Hi Travis, I know, but this is now the released version (4.15.9-0919 beta > 4.15.9-0631), see the history page for SMB-Service: https://www.synology.com/en-us/releaseNote/SMBService?model=DS918%2B#7_x_series With the beta version it still works. But we can't stay on the beta forever I think. Regards Ingo https://github.com/WAdama Travis Wenks via samba schrieb am 13.04.2023 um 21:29:

Hi All, the Synology support is claiming this bug is the reason for the access problems via hostname (Kerberos): https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14213 These log entries in log.wb-ADNAME are given as evidence: ../../source3/winbindd/winbindd_msrpc.c:307: [2023/06/14 22:13:42.913399, winbind 3, pid=10150] msrpc_sid_to_name msrpc_sid_to_name: S-1-18-1 f?r Dom?ne ADNAME

The only way I have found to fix that is to enable the beta updates in plugins and install the beta version of samba on the Synology. Thank you, Travis Wenks Rose City Solutions Owner [image: Rose City Skyline Logo] * Phone *503.821.7000 <3464881845> * Website *rosecitysolutions.com <https://rosecitysolutions.com> * Email * travis at rosecitysolutions.com On Thu, Apr 13, 2023

Hi, to all of you which are using Synology NAS systems. With SMB-Service 4.15.9-0631 no longer shares are accessible via domain group rights from a Samba 4.17.7 domain. It seems the same error described in the following mail trails: "No longer access to shares after upgrade to 4.17.3" "File server joined to a samba domain accessed by windows 10-11 clients, works via ip no via

This is the essence of the last message from Synology: For Synology the problem is no problem... They simply say now, we never claimed we are compatible with Samba AD, only with Windows AD, Azure AD and Synology Directory Server: ?? ?"Domain/LDAP ?? ?Features ??? Seamless integration with Windows AD, Azure AD Domain Service, and LDAP servers" See:

There was a Travis Wenks here, who has/had the same problems. I'm still hoping, he's reading the Samba mail list and tell me if he has still the same problems and we maybe can ally for this. Maybe the maintainers who has answered to the bug report can give some advice, too. The problem for me is that the developers from Synology think it can't be their fault. It's a little

Rowland Penny via samba schrieb am 20.06.2023 um 21:01: > Try adding to the bug report. Would that be ok even it's happening on a Synology? Just don't want to mess around. > I don't think that it is their fault, but we will never know, I don't > think we will ever see what modifications they have made to the Samba > code. However, you do not seem to get the problem

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 ,

Hi, there is some progress, even I would'nt call it that. At least they admitted it's caused through some changes from their side. @Rowland: Remember that "old Samba method" part? This is their answer. I don't know what to make of it. Maybe someone with more knowledge about the develoment of Samba can give me a hint:

Hi Rowland, good point... That seems to be the only SID which popps up in the logs from the Synology device. I found no other. I'm just looking at the same log on my working machines if this is popping up there, too. At least you gave me good hints, how I can answer their request. Thanks for that... Regards Ingo https://github.com/WAdama Rowland Penny via samba schrieb am 21.06.2023

Hi Rowland, to be clear, I'm completely your opinion. They had a running 4.15.9(-0619, their own build number), which was a Beta, and the released version (-0632) didn't worked. So for me it's obvious, too. I can bring the released version to run with a library from their beta version: libidmap-samba4.so. The reason for this as they wrote: "A key difference between SMB

Yes, in my opinion quite an arrogancy... This is the translation of what I got from the supporter: "Our developers have discussed and have concluded that we stand by our previous statement and define the problem as a problem of Samba AD Server (4.17.*). Although Synology is an open source product based on Samba, but we don't always stick to it and adapt our own code in many

On 05/07/2023 08:48, Ingo Asche via samba wrote: > This is the essence of the last message from Synology: > > For Synology the problem is no problem... > > They simply say now, we never claimed we are compatible with Samba AD, This, to me, seems so wrong, they take the Samba code and are not compatible with it ???? Rowland

On 20/06/2023 18:30, Ingo Asche via samba wrote: > Hi Rowland, > > to be clear, I'm completely your opinion. > > They had a running 4.15.9(-0619, their own build number), which was a > Beta, and the released version (-0632) didn't worked. So for me it's > obvious, too. > > I can bring the released version to run with a library from their beta >

Hi Vincent, in my case access via hostname doesn't work. That seems to be a Kerberos problem, as access via IP works. IP access uses NTLM authentication. With SMB-Service 4.15.9-0619 (was the Beta) it worked, with the released version 4.15.9-0632 not anymore. If you change one library in the released version to the one from Beta (libidmap-samba4.so) then the released version works again.

Hallo, just my 2 cents: So Samba 4.12 works, but 4.13+ doesnt? Maybe you can use the same strategy here as used for Win XP or older OS: Setup an isolated (virtualized?) DC with samba 4.12 just for the synology to connect to? You could use firewalld/ufw rules to only allow traffic to the samba ports from one single source IP-adress (the synology) to limit the exposure... Just until synology

On 20/06/2023 20:16, Ingo Asche via samba wrote: > Rowland Penny via samba schrieb am 20.06.2023 um 21:01: > >> Try adding to the bug report. > Would that be ok even it's happening on a Synology? Just don't want to > mess around. I personally can see no reason not to, at worst your information will be ignored, at best you may provide the information to get the bug

On 29/06/2023 07:38, Ingo Asche via samba wrote: > Hi, > > there is some progress, even I would'nt call it that. At least they > admitted it's caused through some changes from their side. > > @Rowland: Remember that "old Samba method" part? > > This is their answer. I don't know what to make of it. Maybe someone > with more knowledge about the

Op 18-10-2023 om 11:32 schreef Ingo Asche via samba: > Hi Michael, > > thanks for the info - and your work... > > As Bookworm for Raspberry isn't that far away, I can live with that. > This is "just" my playground... I have recently migrated my Raspberry Pi machines from Raspbian to Debian bookworm. It has several advantages: - All Debian packages are