VOGONS

Common searches


First post, by douglar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/04/micro … -in-windows-11/

SMB1 has long since been replaced with newer and more secure versions of the protocol; SMB2 was introduced in 2007, and version 3.1.1 was added to Windows 10 in 2016. But the original is still occasionally used by old servers and equipment—and if a machine is old enough to rely on SMB1, it's probably old enough that no one is interested in maintaining or upgrading it.

For now, the SMB1 feature can still be installed manually by users and system administrators who need it, and if you're using SMB1 on a PC that you're upgrading to Windows 11, the upgrade won't disable the feature. The next phase of the transition will go one step further, completely removing DLL files and drivers needed for SMB1 support from the OS. The company "will provide an out-of-band unsupported install package for organizations or users that still need SMB1 to connect to old factory machinery, medical gear, consumer NAS, etc.," writes Pyle.

Reply 1 of 25, by BEEN_Nath_58

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

As long as they allow to use SMB1, I am all fine with it. Hopefully they don't remove it completely down the line for "security purposes"

previously known as Discrete_BOB_058

Reply 2 of 25, by douglar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
BEEN_Nath_58 wrote on 2022-04-22, 18:20:

As long as they allow to use SMB1, I am all fine with it. Hopefully they don't remove it completely down the line for "security purposes"

Sounds like it's going to be a separate install from the main OS before too much longer.

Reply 3 of 25, by BEEN_Nath_58

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
douglar wrote on 2022-04-22, 18:36:
BEEN_Nath_58 wrote on 2022-04-22, 18:20:

As long as they allow to use SMB1, I am all fine with it. Hopefully they don't remove it completely down the line for "security purposes"

Sounds like it's going to be a separate install from the main OS before too much longer.

It's still fine. I wouldn't want them to do anything extra now. Having the option to install now is good enough

previously known as Discrete_BOB_058

Reply 4 of 25, by Gmlb256

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

SMB1 was deprecated and eventually disabled by default on newer Windows installations for good reasons and has to do with the WannaCry ramsonware and a insecure protocol. For transferring files between my modern computer and older systems I use FTP only when needed.

Reply 7 of 25, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Everything is insecure, shut it all down.

DOSBox Compilation Guides
DosBox Feature Request Thread
PC Game Compatibility List
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Running DRM games offline

Reply 8 of 25, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Seriously, I don't see an issue with removing SMBv1 support from Windows 11, at least for retro enthusiast use cases.

In that context, the main (possibly only) use case I see for SMBv1 is transferring files to and from computers running an OS that is ONLY capable of SMBv1 .

To that end, there are at least two ways to proceed WITHOUT actually needing SMBv1 support in a Windows 11 running on a modern computer .

a) Running a NAS that is SMBv1 capable (eventually through the use of a VM on that NAS or through a container running an older SMBv1 capable SAMBA release or maybe even through an eventual SMBv1 capable fork of SAMBA)
b) Running an SMBv1 capable OS in a VM on a modern Windows 11 machine

I choose option a) .

Reply 10 of 25, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
schmatzler wrote on 2022-04-22, 21:36:

I run Samba 3 on my NAS, which can handle SMB1 and SMB2 simultaneously, so...let them do it.

I do that too, currently. However SMBv1 will dropped from SAMBA eventually, so one will need to run an older version or maybe a future theoretical fork that maintains support for SMBv1 .

Reply 11 of 25, by schmatzler

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

ksmbd works with SMB1, too. Haven't fully switched to it because I can't get the latest version packaged for my NAS, which supposedly fixes some bugs.

I'll eventually switch to it, though.

Reply 12 of 25, by davidrg

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I suppose Microsoft dropping SMBv1 will probably accelerate Sambas already announced plans to do the same. But none of this is really surprising - SMBv1 has been inconvenient to use on Windows and Samba for a while now for good security reasons. And most likely whatever unsupported SMBv1 add-on Microsoft supplies for Windows 11 won't work on Windows 12.

For retro machines there are plenty of other options. On DOS, EtherDFS and NCP-over-IPX were already vastly better options than SMB with the only real downside being you need to run some software on a raspberry pi to act as a server. NCP-over-IPX works on all versions of Windows up to (and including) XP/2003 so you could have a Raspberry Pi exposing the same directory via NCP for retro machines and SMBv2+ for modern PCs.

And FTP is of course a reasonable option if you don't want/need the convenience of network drives. Again, modern Samba and proftpd or similar on a Rapsberry Pi both sharing the same directory. Retro machines can use FTP, Modern can use Samba. FTPs security issues really only come down to its lack of encryption - not really a problem if its confined to your LAN or if the server doesn't allow uploads.

Reply 14 of 25, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
schmatzler wrote on 2022-04-23, 00:44:

ksmbd works with SMB1, too. Haven't fully switched to it because I can't get the latest version packaged for my NAS, which supposedly fixes some bugs.

I'll eventually switch to it, though.

Unless I am looking at the wrong thing or somehow misinterpreting, this https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesy … cifs/ksmbd.html implies that SMB1 is specifically not supported by ksmbd :

Dialects Supported. SMB2.1 SMB3.0, SMB3.1.1 dialects (intentionally excludes security vulnerable SMB1 dialect).

Reply 15 of 25, by davidrg

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
darry wrote on 2022-04-23, 04:15:
Unless I am looking at the wrong thing or somehow misinterpreting, this https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesy … cifs/ksm […]
Show full quote
schmatzler wrote on 2022-04-23, 00:44:

ksmbd works with SMB1, too. Haven't fully switched to it because I can't get the latest version packaged for my NAS, which supposedly fixes some bugs.

I'll eventually switch to it, though.

Unless I am looking at the wrong thing or somehow misinterpreting, this https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesy … cifs/ksmbd.html implies that SMB1 is specifically not supported by ksmbd :

Dialects Supported. SMB2.1 SMB3.0, SMB3.1.1 dialects (intentionally excludes security vulnerable SMB1 dialect).

The github page suggests SMB1 is supported but it might just be out of date and I expect even if it did currently support SMBv1 it would only be a matter of time until it was removed. I doubt any actively maintained SMB implementations not specifically targeted at retrocomputing are going to keep insecure variants of the protocol around any longer than necessary.

Reply 16 of 25, by BEEN_Nath_58

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
DosFreak wrote on 2022-04-22, 19:22:

Everything is insecure, shut it all down.

That's the type of advice my parents would give. "Don't play online, our computer will get viruses" 😜

previously known as Discrete_BOB_058

Reply 17 of 25, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

To be fair, SMB1 wasn't great from to begin with. It has the same technological status as X.25 protocol by now, maybe.
SMB1 had many features, was quite chatty and the encryption level was low.
It makes sense that Microsoft reacts like it does.

Windows had its technological pinnacle with Windows Vista/7, I think.
Subsequent releases started to remove features and Windows began its transformation process to a service.

I assume it's because the people behind the scene changed.
Also, a lot of the original developers must be in their 60s/70s by now. Or deceased.
So it made sense to remove the older or sophisticated stuff first.
Balmer and Gates also went, that Sinofsky guy took over circa 2010+ and MS started imitating Apple.
The developer's conferences were turned into something remotely resembeling magician shows some would expect in Vegas.
Before, the staff still talked about API functions, new technology, code etc.

Let's face it. Windows has changed. It will depart more and more from Windows NT.
From a philosophical point of view, Windows 1x will leave behind individualism, freedom, customizability.
Gone will be themes, visual styles, custom system sounds etc.
Soon it will be an OS from the imaginary world of Blade Runner etc.
To process didn't suddenly start just now, of course.

It roughly began after Windows 98/Me, when Windows Setup stopped letting users choose which components to install.
Then came product activation in XP, followed by the UAC in Vista and the signed drivers requirement in Windows x64.
However, these versions also offered users useful features in return.
Not so much with Windows 10+.
Even Windows 8.x had some useful features, like USB 3 support or a new task manager.

Windows 1x instead focused primarily at redesigning the interface.
And forcing DRM onto users. That's what the TPM requirement really us useful for.
Content management. Protecting paying commercial customers from Windows users.
Back in the Vista days, TPM already was implemented, but restricted to Bitlocker (drive encryption).
A replacement for a classic password system, so to say.

All in all, it's no surprise really what's going on. I really heartly recommend to acustom to the idea that Windows has its best daye behind.
The route it follows is not in our interest. We, as a community, are a relic of a time gone by.
We're individuals with unpopular ideas and interests, we're self sufficient, still not completely dependent of the internet.
In some ways, we're even more independent than our parents perhaps.
They didn't learn to interact with the digital world the way we did.
They may were pioneers in computing, too, but had a different relationship perhaps.
Computers from the 70s were more like typewriters or cash registers, rather than the magical box we grew up with and learned to love.
I see this with happening in my own family, too.
My father really was/is an computer expert, started with punch cards, CP/M, the fitst micros etc.
However, I feel he became much too dependent of the internet.
He nolonger does things the way he used to.
While I do still visit physical libraries, save/restore VHS tapes, use classic light bulbs and own old flash lights, he seems to have been accustomed to the current state of the technological world.
The rest of the family is similar. My sister nolonger uses her old consoles or physical copies.
She had been completely transitioned to Netflix, Amazon and virtual consoles (Switch).
Anyway, each to his own. It's just an observation.
People around us are completely owned by their online accounts and smartphones.
We who still use real personal computers and interact with physical objects are becoming a minority.

These things have an impact into Windows, too.
Imagine the people working on Windows right now.
They could be your younger sisters/relatives, cultural wise.

Edit: Another thing to consider. What happened to the internet, the web?
What did it stand fir, what does it stand for now?
What happened to diversity in terms of protocols, were's the creativity gone?
The internet used to be a place of innovation rather than standards set into stone.
In the beginning, technology was free to develop, to spread.
Now everything must be blessed by a consortium.
Just look what happened to Shockwave/Flash etc.
The technology was shut down due to political reasons.
Browsers stopped to support plug-ins all together.
This nolonger is the way things used to be. The internet lost its inner child, its soul. It had become practical, useful.
If it was a living being, it would be suffering of Scorbutus now.

Edit: Some typos fixed.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 18 of 25, by schmatzler

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
darry wrote on 2022-04-23, 04:15:

Unless I am looking at the wrong thing or somehow misinterpreting, this https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesy … cifs/ksmbd.html implies that SMB1 is specifically not supported by ksmbd

It is indeed supported, even if the official docs suggest otherwise.

Last I've tested it there were some problems logging into an SMBv1 share and there was only a workaround for Windows XP, not 9x.

This seems to be fixed now, though:
https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd/issues/546

So ksmbd might be a good, lightweight alternative to Samba3.