network shares

Hi All,

Pro, x64, Build 1709

I just added the first of a 1709 to a customer's network.
The network now has four XP Sp3 x32 computers and one
Fedora Samba server. Everyone is set up as a "workgroup"
with the same workgroup name.

The 1709 has two very minor network issues I wonder
you guys have any insight on. I have worked around
all the issues.

1) shares do not show up in Windows Explorer (not IE),
but can be addressed by manually typing in the name or
address of other computer's shares.

2) 1709 gives "permission denied" to a Samba share if
it is called "netlogon". (Works if you change the
share's name and all other share names work.)


Many thanks,
-T

T wrote:
Hi All,

Pro, x64, Build 1709

I just added the first of a 1709 to a customer's network.
The network now has four XP Sp3 x32 computers and one
Fedora Samba server. Everyone is set up as a "workgroup"
with the same workgroup name.

The 1709 has two very minor network issues I wonder
you guys have any insight on. I have worked around
all the issues.

1) shares do not show up in Windows Explorer (not IE),
but can be addressed by manually typing in the name or
address of other computer's shares.

2) 1709 gives "permission denied" to a Samba share if
it is called "netlogon". (Works if you change the
share's name and all other share names work.)


Many thanks,
-T

For (1), someone had an AV problem recently. It seemed the NetBIOS
was being disabled by the AV "firewall" or similar. So it
wasn't an issue with some service that enables NetBIOS.

If you're running on a WinXP network, you'll want
to check Programs and Features : Windows Features.
That's not NetBIOS, not your problem, but it will
break the plumbing for the transfers. WinXP only has
SMBV1, so if that's turned off, then WinXP is an island
in a sense.

https://s18.postimg.cc/5ywne8u2h/fun_with_SMBV1.gif

When I've tried turning on sharing recently in Linux,
the share had the name of the folder I was sharing.
I don't see where the "netlogon" would come from
in that case.

Paul

On 04/15/2018 07:39 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:
Hi All,

Pro, x64, Build 1709

I just added the first of a 1709 to a customer's network.
The network now has four XP Sp3 x32 computers and one
Fedora Samba server.Â* Everyone is set up as a "workgroup"
with the same workgroup name.

The 1709 has two very minor network issues I wonder
you guys have any insight on.Â* I have worked around
all the issues.

1) shares do not show up in Windows Explorer (not IE),
but can be addressed by manually typing in the name or
address of other computer's shares.

2) 1709 gives "permission denied" to a Samba share if
it is called "netlogon".Â* (Works if you change the
share's name and all other share names work.)


Many thanks,
-T

For (1), someone had an AV problem recently. It seemed the NetBIOS
was being disabled by the AV "firewall" or similar. So it
wasn't an issue with some service that enables NetBIOS.

If you're running on a WinXP network, you'll want
to check Programs and Features : Windows Features.
That's not NetBIOS, not your problem, but it will
break the plumbing for the transfers. WinXP only has
SMBV1, so if that's turned off, then WinXP is an island
in a sense.

https://s18.postimg.cc/5ywne8u2h/fun_with_SMBV1.gif

Hi Paul,

NetBIOS is enabled and working perfectly or I would not be able to
read network shares when manually entered. And XP is all configured
to read Samba's shares with NTLMv2. (I have notes on that, if you
want them.)

Some network scanners still use SMBV1, which is a pain in the ass,
but you can work around it.



When I've tried turning on sharing recently in Linux,
the share had the name of the folder I was sharing.
I don't see where the "netlogon" would come from
in that case.

You must have used a utility to set up Samba. I use the
time honored, send Windows users screaming in terror,
utility called "vi".

You can all your network shares whatever you want. Open your
/etc/samba/smb.conf and look at the bottom. This will show
you your network shares. Just don't pick a name that Windows
"I can't count" thinks is a reserved word for a Primary Domain
Controller (PDC) controller, such as "netlogon".

-T

[netlogon]
# not being used as this is a now workgroup server.
# netlogon left in place to copy out the logon.bat to the user's start up.
# These entries left in place in case this server is used as a PDC
# in the future

# http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/samba/book/ch06_06.html
# %U session username (the username that the client wanted,
# not necessarily the same as the one they got).
# %u UNIX username
# %S the name of the current service, if any.
# %G primary group name of %U

; Note: (G) logon script = scripts/logon.bat (forward slash)
; controls what is run

comment = Network Logon Service (X
path = /exports/netlogon
## public = no
## writeable = no
##
## # set browable to "no" if you don't want everyone to be able to
browse the scripts
## browsable = yes

valid users = @users
write list = @users
read only = no
public = no
writable = yes
printable = no
browseable = no

force create mode = 0000
create mode = 0777
force directory mode = 0000
directory mode = 0777
# note default "map archive" is "yes"
map archive = yes
map system = yes
map hidden = yes

On 2018-04-15 19:35, T wrote:

Hi All,

Pro, x64, Build 1709

I just added the first of a 1709 to a customer's network.
The network now has four XP Sp3 x32 computers and one
Fedora Samba server. Everyone is set up as a "workgroup"
with the same workgroup name.

The 1709 has two very minor network issues I wonder
you guys have any insight on. I have worked around
all the issues.

1) shares do not show up in Windows Explorer (not IE),
but can be addressed by manually typing in the name or
address of other computer's shares.

How about that Computer Browser service, is that still working? That
uses SMB1, and if you allow 1709 to remove SMB1 you will loose that too.
Explorer uses WS-DISCOVERY (or so below article says) instead when SMB1
is not present, but Xp might not respond to that. "Because the Computer
Browser service relies on SMBv1, the service is uninstalled if the SMBv1
client or server is uninstalled. This means that Explorer Network can no
longer display Windows computers through the legacy NetBIOS datagram
browsing method. "

See he
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...r-version-1709
And he
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/...ork-resources/

2) 1709 gives "permission denied" to a Samba share if
it is called "netlogon". (Works if you change the
share's name and all other share names work.)

Maybe it's now a reserved word that you cannot use unless you are in a
domain?

Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Memberavid-Suzuki-Fdn/EFF/Red+Cross/SPCA/Planetary-Society
oO-( )-Oo Okay, I pulled the pin, now what? Hey, where you going?

On 04/16/2018 07:49 PM, B00ze wrote:
On 2018-04-15 19:35, T wrote:

Hi All,

Pro, x64, Build 1709

I just added the first of a 1709 to a customer's network.
The network now has four XP Sp3 x32 computers and one
Fedora Samba server.Â* Everyone is set up as a "workgroup"
with the same workgroup name.

The 1709 has two very minor network issues I wonder
you guys have any insight on.Â* I have worked around
all the issues.

1) shares do not show up in Windows Explorer (not IE),
but can be addressed by manually typing in the name or
address of other computer's shares.

How about that Computer Browser service, is that still working? That
uses SMB1, and if you allow 1709 to remove SMB1 you will loose that too.
Explorer uses WS-DISCOVERY (or so below article says) instead when SMB1
is not present, but Xp might not respond to that. "Because the Computer
Browser service relies on SMBv1, the service is uninstalled if the SMBv1
client or server is uninstalled. This means that Explorer Network can no
longer display Windows computers through the legacy NetBIOS datagram
browsing method. "

See he
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...r-version-1709

And he
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/...ork-resources/



Thank you!

2) 1709 gives "permission denied" to a Samba share if
it is called "netlogon".Â* (Works if you change the
share's name and all other share names work.)

Maybe it's now a reserved word that you cannot use unless you are in a
domain?

Domain reserved words should be disabled when you set the stinker up
as a workgroup. I will just change the name to "net" from "netlogon".

On 04/16/2018 09:23 AM, T wrote:
[netlogon]
^^^^^^^^^^ your share name
Â*Â* comment = Network Logon Service (X
Â*Â* path = /exports/netlogon

The [name] is where you set the share name. The
share can point to any path that SELinux allows
you to use.

T wrote:
On 04/16/2018 09:23 AM, T wrote:
[netlogon]
^^^^^^^^^^ your share name
comment = Network Logon Service (X
path = /exports/netlogon

The [name] is where you set the share name. The
share can point to any path that SELinux allows
you to use.


What I discovered, purely by accident, is if you are in
Linux, you right-click on a folder, there's a sharing item,
and it sets up *all* the samba server stuff for you. And
it works. It works better than the samba client currently
does on Linux. (The "peak" performance of the Samba client
was a few years ago, when I could count on it actually working
each time I tried to use it. Now, depending on the file manager,
there are a variety of "grumpy" behaviors.)

When the Samba client on a Linux VM won't work, I now switch
to Samba server, using the convenient "share" option on a
transfer folder. (Typically I use the Downloads folder in the
home for this.)

Paul

On 04/16/2018 10:20 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/16/2018 09:23 AM, T wrote:
[netlogon]
Â* ^^^^^^^^^^Â* your share name
Â*Â*Â* comment = Network Logon Service (X
Â*Â*Â* path = /exports/netlogon

The [name] is where you set the share name.Â* The
share can point to any path that SELinux allows
you to use.


What I discovered, purely by accident, is if you are in
Linux, you right-click on a folder, there's a sharing item,
and it sets up *all* the samba server stuff for you. And
it works. It works better than the samba client currently
does on Linux. (The "peak" performance of the Samba client
was a few years ago, when I could count on it actually working
each time I tried to use it. Now, depending on the file manager,
there are a variety of "grumpy" behaviors.)

When the Samba client on a Linux VM won't work, I now switch
to Samba server, using the convenient "share" option on a
transfer folder. (Typically I use the Downloads folder in the
home for this.)

Â*Â* Paul

Which file manager?

T wrote:
On 04/16/2018 10:20 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/16/2018 09:23 AM, T wrote:
[netlogon]
^^^^^^^^^^ your share name
comment = Network Logon Service (X
path = /exports/netlogon

The [name] is where you set the share name. The
share can point to any path that SELinux allows
you to use.


What I discovered, purely by accident, is if you are in
Linux, you right-click on a folder, there's a sharing item,
and it sets up *all* the samba server stuff for you. And
it works. It works better than the samba client currently
does on Linux. (The "peak" performance of the Samba client
was a few years ago, when I could count on it actually working
each time I tried to use it. Now, depending on the file manager,
there are a variety of "grumpy" behaviors.)

When the Samba client on a Linux VM won't work, I now switch
to Samba server, using the convenient "share" option on a
transfer folder. (Typically I use the Downloads folder in the
home for this.)

Paul

Which file manager?

It's possible it was Thunar, but who can keep track :-)

At the time, I was *shocked*, because I don't know how many
USENET Linux group threads I've read where somebody would say
"um, Samba server, nasty config file, stay away", and of course
if I'd go take a look at the file, I'd conclude "yeah, how scary".

And then just recently, I happen to right click a folder, and there's
this "Share" item sitting there staring me in the face. And
the damn thing works. And I'm wondering to myself "exactly
how many years have they been misleading me on this". After
seeing and knowing the config file was scary, it's a shock
to see automation take over and it works.

I know on some distros, the Samba server package wasn't installed
by default. So those would be a definite example where the
automation wouldn't be ready-to-go. I just wish I'd seen an
announcement somewhere, that automation had been added.

Paul

On 04/16/2018 11:42 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/16/2018 10:20 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/16/2018 09:23 AM, T wrote:
[netlogon]
Â* ^^^^^^^^^^Â* your share name
Â*Â*Â* comment = Network Logon Service (X
Â*Â*Â* path = /exports/netlogon

The [name] is where you set the share name.Â* The
share can point to any path that SELinux allows
you to use.


What I discovered, purely by accident, is if you are in
Linux, you right-click on a folder, there's a sharing item,
and it sets up *all* the samba server stuff for you. And
it works. It works better than the samba client currently
does on Linux. (The "peak" performance of the Samba client
was a few years ago, when I could count on it actually working
each time I tried to use it. Now, depending on the file manager,
there are a variety of "grumpy" behaviors.)

When the Samba client on a Linux VM won't work, I now switch
to Samba server, using the convenient "share" option on a
transfer folder. (Typically I use the Downloads folder in the
home for this.)

Â*Â*Â* Paul

Which file manager?

It's possible it was Thunar, but who can keep track :-)

Hi Paul,

Not my Thunar :'(

Sound like a nice innovation! More like how Windows does it.
The Windows method, in my opinion, was what killed Novell's
NetWare server, which was an obnoxious dog to configure
and maintain.

At the time, I was *shocked*, because I don't know how many
USENET Linux group threads I've read where somebody would say
"um, Samba server, nasty config file, stay away", and of course
if I'd go take a look at the file, I'd conclude "yeah, how scary".

Oh Ya. It is a hand full. Once you get it right, you copy and
paste a lot. And there are really simple examples you can
copy and paste to get you going quickly.

And don't forget that samba's installer does not install
SystemD's systemctl start points. You have to do it manually.

My biggest trip up was not having 127.0.0.1 and localhost in
the /etc/hosts file and having the wrong name of the machine
in the dns forward and reverse tables. What is hair for
if not for pulling out?

I have a perl program for restarting a Samba server, if you
want it.

-T