Re: [Samba] 4.2.14 (or newer) support "Windows for Workgroups 3.1a"?
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:05:11 -0400
- From: Gaiseric Vandal via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Samba] 4.2.14 (or newer) support "Windows for Workgroups 3.1a"?
I would check
client ldap sasl wrapping
client ipc signing
Depending on the samba version, the defaults may be different.
Assuming you did not change the default ports , which would be as follows
smb ports = 445 139
Following the BADLOCK vulnerability, Microsoft released patches faster
than my OS provider did so I had to tinker with the above settings until
I restored functionality.
Of course, if your server is also supporting your "regular" users
(rather than the industrial machines) you are likely to break something
so you definitely want to have separate servers. VM's are a pretty
easy way to implement additional servers with out consuming a lot of
On 04/30/18 13:23, Andrea Baldoni via samba wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:55:24AM -0400, Gaiseric Vandal via samba wrote:
I suspect at this point making Windows 7 and Windows 3.11 interact is a
loosing proposition. It is pretty scary to think that there is still
equipment that requires Windows 3.11. Hopefully it is air-gapped and not
part of the electrical grid.
I can evaluate different options: I can make a chrooted secondary samba (on
a different IP) only to serve Windows 3.11 (or a VM with a minimal linux
inside, eventually) if this could solve my problem. What parameters I should
try to put to "no" to see if I get the 3.11 to connect? I have a test enviroment
so I can try without disrupting service.
Is there a difference between connecting to a share using the server IP name
rather than the hostname ?
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the