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
Sonos could simply delete SMB support tomorrow
Yes they could.
(which would be the most secure option)
Because HTTP is secure and SMB is insecure? Or are you referring to the issue that is only affecting Windows?
If NAS users want a solution, they just need to get the http server running on those NASs, which would take a few hours of work. However there has been zero interest expressed in this work to date.
Are you saying that that I could get this to work over HTTP with a few hours of work? Care to share?
Sonos have the telemetry to know how many users rely on file servers
You mean from the thing most advanced users turn off when they set up their system?
A file share running SMB1 is extremely vulnerable to all the variants of cryptolocker virus that exists today.
I was under the impression that this was for old unpatched versions of Windows...
Are you saying that my Samba server runing under Linux is vulnerable to this family of exploits when allowing SMB1?
Userlevel 7
+22
I’m not an expert on that but I think running SMB v1 on anything does have security issues. Too lazy to dig into the details as they likely vary by Linux distribution.
Avoiding the issue, I went with a dedicated SMB v1 NAS based on a Raspberry PI here and set up a friend with a NFS to SMB v1 gateway on a Pi Zero W.
This has been an open issue for so long expecting a change isn’t realistic. Not saying it won’t come, but don’t hold your breath. Instead pick a safe work-around and move on.
The .Net Core option sounds interesting but my problem is solved.
I am so puzzled at the lack of support for NAS users.
Am I the only one with old, weird music that is impossible to find elsewhere?
And if Sonos does not want to support NAS, could they not support OneDrive instead?
Oh well, since I do not know what I am doing it took me forever to figure out the SMB1 solution.
But now it is done. Until the next hiccup.
Bose, here I come!
Curious as to whether you’ve read the thread before posting to it?
Hello
Sorry I need help, i changed my NAS412 to NAS920 Synology. New NAS ist SW Version 7. Now the NAS cannot be connected to the sonos. I already read the different hints. SMB1 Protokoll or activate LTNMv1. I tried all, but i cannot connect. Access is not granted please check user and PW. in German Zugriff auf Freigabe … Verweiger prüfe Benutzer und/oder Kennwort. I am sure the User and PW is correct. - the following string i tried \\192.168.1.201\music als with the Servername \\NAS920\music
Can someone help, i want to integrate my music folder again. Thx.
+9
I’m not an expert on that but I think running SMB v1 on anything does have security issues. Too lazy to dig into the details as they likely vary by Linux distribution.
Avoiding the issue, I went with a dedicated SMB v1 NAS based on a Raspberry PI here and set up a friend with a NFS to SMB v1 gateway on a Pi Zero W.
This has been an open issue for so long expecting a change isn’t realistic. Not saying it won’t come, but don’t hold your breath. Instead pick a safe work-around and move on.
The .Net Core option sounds interesting but my problem is solved.
I have read your posts elsewhere on using a raspberry pi as a Gateway. For a dozen years I was running a dlink 323 only for Sonos and leaving it on SMB1. That box has died and my main NAS which I won’t allow the unsecured smb1 to run on could certainly hold my ~20,000 tracks and the gateway idea seems to make sense. I am far more proficient at networking than I am at coding…. and I’ve never used a pi but I love the idea of what you present and the cost is lower which is great. The comments that you make about how to set that up seem generally simple to follow but I was curious if that is a complete instruction set or if that is a small portion of a much larger assumption that someone would have complete understanding of setting up the pi? Also is there a general security issue with having any device running version one even the pi as a Gateway? That would not itself cause the issues that we are trying to avoid?
I’m not an expert on that but I think running SMB v1 on anything does have security issues. Too lazy to dig into the details as they likely vary by Linux distribution.
Avoiding the issue, I went with a dedicated SMB v1 NAS based on a Raspberry PI here and set up a friend with a NFS to SMB v1 gateway on a Pi Zero W.
This has been an open issue for so long expecting a change isn’t realistic. Not saying it won’t come, but don’t hold your breath. Instead pick a safe work-around and move on.
The .Net Core option sounds interesting but my problem is solved.
You are correct. These security issue are not software bugs tied to a specific implementation of SMBv1 (say a particular version of Linux vs Mac OS vs Windows). There are fundamental security design flaws in older versions of SMB that can only be fixed by changing the protocol itself - thus SMBv2, v3, etc.
The ridiculous part of this thread is conflating old devices, backward compatibility, and a seemingly very reasonable request for Sonos to keep a feature they still support working at “industry standard” level on NEW hardware.
As others have said; if old devices cannot handle an SMBv2/v3 client library due to their firmware - leave them with SMBv1 support - they’re old and that’s what they started with. But limiting new devices to an insecure protocol that is not supported by many modern SMB “servers” is crazy. OTOH; new devices probably should keep allowing SMBv1 (if a user configures that) as the opposite problem exists; ancient NASes that don’t support new versions of SMB.
But workarounds telling people there are many ways to still run SMBv1 don’t address the main two issues: (1) Sonos support for SMB is decreasing in quality if that doesn’t mean “any common, modern SMB compatible server” and (2) no one should want to run ANYTHING with SMBv1 as the protocol; that’s why all the distros and commercial OSes are dropping support. Workaround are fine to help each other; but they don’t execute lack of a real product commitment response from Sonos.
Userlevel 7
+22
Good news, the new Samba code needed and the old Samba stuff Sonos uses are both open source as is the kernel so you should be able to easily pull the needed features from the new Samba and stick them in the old version.
Hopefully that will compile into a small enough image that it will fit on Sonos hardware. Also hopefully, you won’t find so many incompatibilities in the ancient Linux kernel Sonos uses and the new Samba that it is a huge problem.
I’d be interested in trying the HTTP sharing if someone wanted to develop a Linux server for it.
Honestly though $25 and a half hour solved my SMB issues so I’m not going to be interested in anything that is much effort.
Userlevel 7
+22
There has been much discussion of why Sonos does not support SMB v2 or 3, rather than rehash it again after so many past times I’l leave you to dig up the old topics if you care.
If you can address the issues seen there I’m sure the Sonos folks would be more than happy to forward your solutions to their tech folks who are stumped by the issue.
I’m fascinated by your assumption that their tech folks are stumped by the issue.
I’ve got some questions, if you’d be so kind:
- How many engineers does Sonos have?
- How large of a team would it require, if our assumption of the fact that the previous kernel would need to be replaced, would it take?
- Are you familiar enough with the Sonos code base to have an educated opinion as to how much time and effort is involved?
- Have you done scheduling for Sonos engineers, and are familiar with their velocity, and the challenges in dealing with the issue?
- Given that they’ve written a new system (S2], and integrated a couple of new features (HD radio and LPCM for the Arc), and had to work through the issues raised by the pandemic, and done a bit of bug fixing, how are you arriving at the fact that they’ve had time, much less are stumped by the issue?
- Are you familiar with their backlog, and management requests for feature prioritization?
Unfortunately, I don’t have answers to any of those questions. I’m unwilling to cast aspersions, unless someone can show that the Sonos staff is willfully sitting on their behinds, and ignoring the issue. I’d like to think not, but I don’t know.
Userlevel 7
+22
I’m fascinated by your assumption that their tech folks are stumped by the issue.
I’ve got some questions, if you’d be so kind:
- How many engineers does Sonos have?
- How large of a team would it require, if our assumption of the fact that the previous kernel would need to be replaced, would it take?
- Are you familiar enough with the Sonos code base to have an educated opinion as to how much time and effort is involved?
- Have you done scheduling for Sonos engineers, and are familiar with their velocity, and the challenges in dealing with the issue?
- Given that they’ve written a new system (S2], and integrated a couple of new features (HD radio and LPCM for the Arc), and had to work through the issues raised by the pandemic, and done a bit of bug fixing, how are you arriving at the fact that they’ve had time, much less are stumped by the issue?
- Are you familiar with their backlog, and management requests for feature prioritization?
Unfortunately, I don’t have answers to any of those questions. I’m unwilling to cast aspersions, unless someone can show that the Sonos staff is willfully sitting on their behinds, and ignoring the issue. I’d like to think not, but I don’t know.
Re-reading that rant don’t you feel a bit embarrassed?
Wouldn't it have been easier to just ask “Why do you think they are stumped?”
If you ask me to stuff an elephant into a phone booth and I can’t do it, how is pointing that out insulting to me? The Sonos folks are in exactly the same situation trying to stuff a modern kernel and Samba into the limited legacy Sonos hardware.
In any case, I based that ‘stumped’ on seeing some discussion between the Sonos folks and the Samba developers on getting the current Samba to work on the latest Sonos kernel. I was not party to the details but as nothing came of it I’m going with stumped.
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this information? I’ve just spent five minutes on Google, looking for this data, and haven’t been successful in finding it.
+1
I faced the same problem. Strange that after 3 years!!!! There stil is no update.
I didn't know this problem until I updated to Synology DMS 7 and I couldn't connect to my music library anymore. I activated NTLMv1 on my NAS, buit I'm not happy it needs to be done
When will this updated to the newest save standards (NTLMv2)??
Thank you most kindly!
Edit… looks like Zappiti has a similar issue as does Sonos...not enough space to update their kernel.
Userlevel 7
+21
I faced the same problem. Strange that after 3 years!!!! There stil is no update.
I didn't know this problem until I updated to Synology DMS 7 and I couldn't connect to my music library anymore. I activated NTLMv1 on my NAS, buit I'm not happy it needs to be done
When will this updated to the newest save standards (NTLMv2)??
Look on the other thread. Sonos have acknowledged they are working on smb 3 support. No timescales but it’s good to know pots coming.
Userlevel 7
+14
Do they (Sonos) really have no space to update the kernel? 
In general, many of us believe that is the case in S1 legacy devices. The amount of memory on those devices is extraordinarily limited. The common belief is at some point, hopefully in the near future, the extra memory in newer S2 devices will allow Sonos to replace the old kernel with a newer version in the S2 firmware, that is capable of including a newer version of Samba.
There has been no confirmation from Sonos, one way or another. So essentially we’re making a guess here, but it seems logical, and fits the facts as we know them.
Any news about supporting a newer SMB version?
This is really unsecure, please add support for NTLMv2 asap. :(
+1
I faced the same problem. Strange that after 3 years!!!! There stil is no update.
I didn't know this problem until I updated to Synology DMS 7 and I couldn't connect to my music library anymore. I activated NTLMv1 on my NAS, buit I'm not happy it needs to be done
When will this updated to the newest save standards (NTLMv2)??
Look on the other thread. Sonos have acknowledged they are working on smb 3 support. No timescales but it’s good to know pots coming.
Thanks for the answer.
Userlevel 7
+14
I was under the impression that S2 devices have lots of space so confused by the “… as does Sonos ...not enough space to update their kernel” but I’m not totally up on all the details and acknowledged I may not be comprehending the nuance of what you are saying.
Anyway Sonos needs to fix this yesterday! (If there is space etc)
I can say that it seems with Synology DSM 7.0 beta Sonos libraries won’t work anymore, even with SMB 1 selected.
No.
Userlevel 7
+22
Sonos has been maintaining an antique Linux kernel, they had to as the changes made to Linux took them past the memory limits on their earlier hardware. Trying to port all the changes they made to the old kernel to a modern kernel is not something that can be quickly done, once done a LOT of testing needs to follow before releasing it to the user base.
My suggestions are:
Use a NAS to SMB v1 gateway device, a Pi for example will support any common NAS file share on the input and SMB v1 on the output.
Use a SMB v1 capable NAS just for your Sonos music. Most of the tiny computers like Pis will support this with the addition of a storage medium, thumb drive, USB hard drive or the like.
I don’t have a warm fuzzy feeling about SMB v1 on a NAS containing important data and I wouldn’t do that.
Page 10 / 12
Reply
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.