We are writing summer 2019 and still Sonos only supports SMB version 1 for the Music Library share.
This is not acceptable.
A file share running SMB1 is extremely vulnerable to all the variants of cryptolocker virus that exists today. File share servers (NAS, Windows, Apple OS) can only support one version of SMB - so you cannot from the same box have one file share (for Sonos) using SMB1 and the other file shares using SMB2 or SMB3. This way Sonos puts each and every file share at serious risc - just because they don’t update their file share protocol to comply with this century.
And for the record - the “solution” through PLEX is not a solution. Unstable at best.
Page 10 / 12
I find it insane that this still an issue and there has been no official response from Sonos. I am sure we have all invested a good deal of money into our systems.
Has anybody opened a support ticket to get an official response?
I had come across the SMB1 issue and the fact Sonos only support SMB1 a long time ago so I am shocked that apparently even the new S2 software still requires it.
Apparently Sonos have a workaround for their Windows app in that it uses http as per https://en.community.sonos.com/setting-up-sonos-228990/smb2-or-smb3-support-must-be-supported-now-6826700?postid=16341722#post16341722
That message does not give any details and Sonos have pretty much been totally silent about this entire SMB issue for years.
I would not regard NFS as a solution and AFP even less so, however what about WebDAV? This is basically http/https and without any details on how their PC share via http works it could be they are close to doing this already.
At least some if not all NAS boxes have built-in WebDAV support.
Whilst I feel it is absolutely necessary for Sonos to fix this themselves another approach I have not seen mentioned in this thread would be to run a VM on a NAS purely for the purposes of operating the SMB1 share. It would then not require additional hardware, would use the content already on the NAS, would allow the NAS itself to leave SMB1 turned off but would make the music accessible via ugh! SMB1.
You can still force samba to work with Sonos by editing the smb.conf file and adding
client min protocol = NT1
server min protocol = NT1
ntlm auth = yes
to the global section of that file.
I only had to add
server min protocol = NT1 to get it to work. However, #disappointed
I have a small plug device with smb exposed just for Sonos library. Was going mad after I upgraded packages this week (including samba) and could not figure out why Sonos did not detect the share, server min protocol setting did the trick.
Also #disappointed
Userlevel 1
Even with S2, Sonos does NOT support SMB2. This is very disappointing! I would like to know the reasons from a Sonos representative!
I was hopeful the S2 OS (12.0) would support this out of the box, but it appears not.
Shame, as I still cannot access my music library from Sonos it’s back to Plex/MacMini for me. That combination works extremely well.
Userlevel 1
You can still force samba to work with Sonos by editing the smb.conf file and adding
client min protocol = NT1
server min protocol = NT1
ntlm auth = yes
to the global section of that file.
I only had to add
server min protocol = NT1to get it to work. However, #disappointed
You can still force samba to work with Sonos by editing the smb.conf file and adding
client min protocol = NT1
server min protocol = NT1
ntlm auth = yes
to the global section of that file.
Userlevel 4
+6
SONOS: Seems like adding docker support for unRAID, Synology, FreeNas, (et. al.) would solve the SMB problem for many NAS users since the music would be local to the docker controller.
I setup a fresh Unraid server and its default enables NT1 in SMB, so Sonos works without problems. As SMB1 is only a security problem in Windows, this has no downside. Discussion:
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/57317-disable-smbv1-following-wannacrypt0r-attacks/
Really crap is that changing the smb server causes killing all playlists as they now link to an non existing server.
As has been previously explained, the consensus is that there isn’t the opportunity to do so in the current kernel being used across all players, due to memory restrictions in the oldest players. We will have to see after the modern/legacy split occurs what path Sonos chooses to make, with the knowledge that it may not be on day one of the split, but some number of updates later, depending on effort, QA testing, and beta testing. Or, frankly, if Sonos feels the urge. We just don’t know.
SONOS: Seems like adding docker support for unRAID, Synology, FreeNas, (et. al.) would solve the SMB problem for many NAS users since the music would be local to the docker controller.
Userlevel 7
+22
It never occurred to me that any company would release a brand new product that only supports the obsolete SMB1 protocol!
Sonos could support SMB 2 or 3 but they would have to remove other functions from the Sonos system to do it. The upgrade would take a big chunk of memory and it is likely there are more users for the other stuff than for SMB.
Still the whole SMB v1 issue is a nothing-burger as you can add a SMB v1 gateway to any other Linux supported protocol for under $50 and a half hour’s time.
Sure, but data is data. If the sample size is large enough, then it should be representative of the entire population. There will always be those who prefer privacy over sharing their information, as is their right.
Me? No, I have no hard data to support my claim, however:
Sonos obviously have actual % data from their analytics...
For those people that leave it enabled….
Userlevel 7
+23
Me? No, I have no hard data to support my claim, however:
- The amount of posts on the subject on this forum is small
- Sonos have told us that file-playback is a minority of users (~10%) and I conclude from the Universe that NAS users are a small minority of that minority (because who needs that hassle anyway).
Sonos obviously have actual % data from their analytics, and if NAS users were more than a fraction of the population then a better solution would have already been provided for them.
As many have speculated, we will likely know by May: if SMBv3 support shows up for Modern Sonos devices then we can conclude that NAS usage is important to Sonos. If there is no improvement in SMB support then we can conclude that it is not. Time will tell, and soon.
Userlevel 1
Only the tiny percentage of NAS users would even notice.
I think you will find a lot of Sonos fans store their music on a NAS.
Whilst most of the planet is trying to cut down energy use, Sonos is suggesting that people leave a PC running just to serve some music occasionally ... that sucks.
Only the tiny percentage of NAS users
As a dedicated NAS-user, I have to ask: do you have any source for this remark?
Userlevel 7
+23
It never occurred to me that any company would release a brand new product that only supports the obsolete SMB1 protocol!
Well I think they should just remove SMB support entirely to fix the security issue. PC and Mac users will be fine, as those platforms don’t use it any more. Only the tiny percentage of NAS users would even notice.
The other easy fix would be to make SonosLibraryService.exe use .NET Core so it could run on the Linux systems that most NASs use.
Userlevel 1
The Sonos Amp is my first Sonos purchase and it could be the last.
It never occurred to me that any company would release a brand new product that only supports the obsolete SMB1 protocol!
Had this been a cheap bit of Chinese kit I might have forgiven it but Sonos is supposedly a high-end manufacturer with a reputation to protect.
Come on Sonos, get your act together or go home …
It depends on your ‘risk appetite’ and how you protect your home network and connected devices.
Userlevel 7
+22
Using a guest account helps some but doesn’t mitigate all the SMB v1 risks.
I much prefer to not have v1 enabled on my primary NAS and use a dedicated music NAS or a NAS to SMB v1 gateway to minimize the risk as far as possible.
I bought my NAS solely to supply my own music to Sonos.
Even with Deezer etc there are songs that aren't available to stream.
We don't have computers running 24/7 so it would be a pain if Sonos stopped supporting NAS drives.
I have full confidence that SONOS will address this in the future. Maybe we will get a SONOS compatible media app that will stream music on our (Synology) NAS. Meanwhile, it is worthwhile to mitigate the security risks. I am doing this by using a Guest account with only read permissions to the music library folder(s).
Absolutely. They have different CPUs and different hardware abilities and are built with different toolsets. It is all built from the same source tree, but there are different conditionals that control exactly what ends up in each device’s flash image.
Which is standard procedure for embedded systems. In my line of work, it is all determined by pragmas and make files. However, each application still needs the core code, and if that core code doesn’t fit on the hardware, something has to give.
Userlevel 7
+23
So, you’re saying that the different devices run different code?
Absolutely. They have different CPUs and different hardware abilities and are built with different toolsets. It is all built from the same source tree, but there are different conditionals that control exactly what ends up in each device’s flash image.
Unless you have access to the code base I don’t see how you can say this
I worked in the Sonos code base for several years, as the main contractor on the Phish project. I also have extensive experience in Alexa integration.
So, you’re saying that the different devices run different code?
Go to About My Sonos System and you’ll see that your Sonos devices are running equivalent firmware builds.
Page 10 / 12
Reply
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.