Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:14:59 +0000 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Yuri Pankov <yuripv@yuripv.net> Cc: Edward Napierala <trasz@freebsd.org>, gerard@seibercom.net, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal or updating of "mount_smbfs" from FreeBSD operating system Message-ID: <20181127171459.GC52968@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <a9a10036-9c4c-9aa4-9f64-e34ee8d30e89@yuripv.net> References: <20181126121926.00007626@seibercom.net> <CAFLM3-o_P3-1sDea-Bgbn0oSjnAqF5RAMTWDgkk6K3819XsMDQ@mail.gmail.com> <a9a10036-9c4c-9aa4-9f64-e34ee8d30e89@yuripv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:55:54PM +0300, Yuri Pankov wrote: > Edward Napierala wrote: > > pon., 26 lis 2018 o 17:20 Gerard Seibert <gerard@seibercom.net> napisa?= ?(a): > >> > >> TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN > >> > >> The ???SMBv1??? protocol is a security hazard and was depreciated by M= icrosoft in > >> 2014. There is virtually no use for it anymore. > >> > >> The ???mount_smbfs??? utility in FreeBSD only uses that protocol, whic= h results > >> in making it useless with newer versions of Microsoft???s operating sy= stems, as > >> well as other OS???s that have depreciated the use of SMBv1. > >> > >> I would like to suggest that FreeBSD do one of the following: > >> > >> 1) Remove ???mount_smbfs??? from FreeBSD. This would probably be in ve= rsions 12.1 > >> or 13. It is perhaps too late to get into FreeBSD 12. > >> > >> 2) Update ???mount_smbfs??? so that it is compatible with versions SMB= v3 and > >> greater. While "SMBv2" is not dead, it is definitely comatose. This wo= uld be a > >> better idea if someone had the time to do it. > >=20 > > FWIW, I believe SMBv3 is just a set of (largely optional) extensions to= SMBv2, > > not an entirely different protocol, like SMBv1 is. Which means, any ve= rsion > > that supports v3 is likely to also handle v2. > >=20 > > There seems to be existing, working code in Nexenta, which is being > > upstreamed to Illumos: > >=20 > > https://www.illumos.org/issues/9735 > > https://github.com/illumos/illumos-gate/pull/37 > >=20 > > Their implementation descends from the one we have in base (and the one > > from OSX, which also descends from FreeBSD), so it should be possible to > > merge it. >=20 > Yes, we have it working and tested pretty well. And that's exactly the > reason I was asking if there's work in progress for smb2/3 client or not > before even starting looking into porting the code. >=20 > The problem here is that the code has grown library dependencies which > are CDDL-licensed, which aren't easy to break (if at all), so if ported, > it will be covered by WITHOUT_CDDL; hopefully that's acceptable. It's > possible that Nexenta-authored code could be relicensed under BSDL (I'll > have to ask, we already have a precedent with localedef), but sadly that > doesn't cover everything. I think making this CDDL is fine. Certaintly better than failing to support SMBv2/v3. -- Brooks --4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJb/XuSAAoJEKzQXbSebgfAX60H/30jgIbSCKDHdn0edJm17AQ2 +GfKMyo0LEMOfURR7JHAKw7uABsCajOMEnJxpRi7P4htuth2qxQNOGAvNmCO8v44 xumJKzPUjRy6hSgk6BjrObchKJe6IUNO9XkoEN65p8+1sA6YGot0JTGGpQppQQhj QslsNRDHMJKYXnI+XpXg9+r9646EpSrVwcpVjRfa2YnmkbioNZtL3OVS3uavnWEJ 5CZjsR0b2bu1dfscuiAX+Afe4PKv0xelYqlR+v11fsHqM80HHvj4VIPJxBu192oR BXE9kI6xVQ3/FeZi3OGF9mzLSSi7i0dd2qQb6hkiH+FSF30ZxHqUbLNYeWvIKWQ= =Z++p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20181127171459.GC52968>