Project information - SMBv2+

[Kurt Buff, GSEC/GCIH/PCIP]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:54 AM CerebrosuS <CerebrosuS at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Am 30.12.20 um 18:30 schrieb Dale Scott:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Kevin P. Neal" <kpn at neutralgood.org>
> >> To: "CerebrosuS" <CerebrosuS at gmx.net>
> >> Cc: "freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 7:35:51 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Project information - SMBv2+
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 10:13:07PM +0100, CerebrosuS wrote:
> >>> Hello at all,
> >>>
> >>> the community and developer at FreeBSD seem to know, that SMBv1 for
> >>> clients is nearly over and that the included mount_smbfs doesn't support
> >>> newer versions. So good, so far...
> >>>
> >>> So I can find multiple information about the situation, but no clear
> >>> path on how FreeBSD community and developer will go on to solve this
> >>> missing function. (Just got the information on:
> >>> https://wiki.freebsd.org/MateuszPiotrowski/AccessingSmbSharesWithSambaClient)
> >
> > Can someone give a quick big picture? What would this mean for someone e.g.
> > wanting to build an enterprise file server? Can FreeBSD currently serve (I see
> > latest samba413 is in ports), but not connect as client to other (newer) servers?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> The problem is using FreeBSD as an SMB client. SMBv1 is possible through
> mount_smbfs. SMBv2+ is possible with gvfs and smbnetfs from fuse. SMBv1
> has some bad security issues (thats' why everyone is switching to
> SMBv2+) and MS Windows 10 switched to SMBv2+ meaning, SMBv1 is not
> supported by default.
>
> The fuse module is known be slow and unstable. I read the "unstable" and
> "slow" argument for gvfs too, but have only tested the fuse module.
> Third party packages are also problematic when using with /etc/fstab
> (there seem to be some workarounds with extension scripts).
>
> So to use freebsd as an SMB client would need to extend the mount_smbfs
> module or invest time to speed up smbnetfs/gvfs to make it usable.
>
> For an enterprise file server serving samba is no problem as far as I
> know and as long as you don't need to mount SMB sources to serve the data.
>
> Anyone might want to correct me, if my collected information are wrong. :-)

Not wrong, but using SMBv1 to serve files to machines which don't like
that version of SMB will be an exercise in frustration.

Kurt