Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:53:44 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: Edward Tomasz =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Napiera=3Fa?= <trasz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mount_smbfs(8): support for SMBv3.02? Message-ID: <20160308135344.75e06913@freyja.zeit4.iv.bundesimmobilien.de> In-Reply-To: <20160308095525.GA1872@brick.home> References: <20160303104721.097ae352@freyja.zeit4.iv.bundesimmobilien.de> <20160308095525.GA1872@brick.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:55:25 +0100 Edward Tomasz Napiera=C5=82a <trasz@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 0303T1047, O. Hartmann wrote: > > Does FreeBSD's mount_smbfs(8) support for Microsoft's SMBv3 protocol > > introduced with Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012/R2? =20 >=20 > No, it only supports the obsolete SMB1 (aka CIFS) protocol. Since SMB2 > is a completely different protocol, supporting it properly pretty much > requires implementing it from scratch. SMB3 is one of the SMB2 revisions > and thus is backward compatible with SMB2. >=20 [...] Thank you very much for this clearification. This explains much strange behaviour I faced. Do you see any chance that this gets fixed in a forseable time? Linux seems= to support SMBv3 by now. Or is a support considered obsolete and handled via /net/samba43? For a security appliance, I try to avoid as much packages as possible, so therefore my concerns regarding mount_smbfs. Thanks you very much, O. Hartmann
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160308135344.75e06913>