On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:30:55 -0600 "Steve French" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 7:13 PM, Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:47:17 +0200 > > > > > > > In addition, cifs cannot completely replace smbfs atm. > > > > > > > Even todays sold NAS-boxes (often running anchient > > > > > > > samba-2.x.x) work only with smbfs on the client side. > I am not convinced that this (mounting to older servers) would be a > problem with the proper mount options but it is more intuitive for > smbfs for some of the lanman servers. I do want to make sure that we > don't make it too easy to mount with insecure lanman (ie due to > downgrade attacks) without the user at least doing that (specify weak > lanman security explicitly). Today the user has to explicitly specify > sec=lanman which is confusing but at least makes explicit the weaker > security. > > There are four common issues with mounting to these very old servers: > 1) remembering to mount specifying lanman security (sec=lanman) I think it'd be nice to add an alias called oldsmb or similar for that option in mount.cifs. It should only be needed for old win9x servers.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
