Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:45:27 +0200 From: rainer@ultra-secure.de To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Bob Eager <rde@tavi.co.uk> Subject: Re: smbfs and SMB1 Message-ID: <0705de1f8af4602661ed1d7bc801e9a4@ultra-secure.de> In-Reply-To: <591E4D01.9080600@quip.cz> References: <665caabc-cf2d-7f6a-2187-465907ea6ae7@FreeBSD.org> <591E4D01.9080600@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 2017-05-19 03:40, schrieb Miroslav Lachman: > I am not suru but I think Samba does not provide CIFS/SMBFS mount > binaries. There is just ftp-like client. > FreeBSD is used in networks for filesharing, storage etc. and I feel > SMB mount is very vital feature. Microsoft hat advocated for disabling SMBv1 for a long time. I'm not a Windows expert at all - but I've seen what can be achieved (from a security point of view) in a network with only Server 2016 and Windows 10. I'm not sure even Linux would be much use in such an environment. But the SMBv1-less world is here - and vendors of Linux-based appliances are scrambling for solutions. Like here: https://community.sophos.com/kb/en-us/126757 (We opened a ticket with them, too) Apparently, having SMBv1 enabled violates PCI (DSS) compliance.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0705de1f8af4602661ed1d7bc801e9a4>