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 11 / 12
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?
Zero bytes of the code on the legacy speakers are used for voice. All voice devices have at least 1GB of memory.
Unless you have access to the code base I don’t see how you can say this… So far, we’ve been told that all kit has to run the same version of software, and that the old kit can’t keep up with the latest requirements…. If they already have different kit working on different code bases, then there should be no problem at all making old and new work together seamlessly.
The firmware differs in aspects of functionality. E. g. the ONE would not be operational running firmware designed for the Beam.
Userlevel 7
+23
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.
Zero bytes of the code on the legacy speakers are used for voice. All voice devices have at least 1GB of memory.
Unless you have access to the code base I don’t see how you can say this… So far, we’ve been told that all kit has to run the same version of software, and that the old kit can’t keep up with the latest requirements…. If they already have different kit working on different code bases, then there should be no problem at all making old and new work together seamlessly.
Userlevel 7
+23
Zero bytes of the code on the legacy speakers are used for voice. All voice devices have at least 1GB of memory.
Apart from memory, the oldest devices run old versions of Linux on old CPU types. I know little about Linux, but I would not be surprised if modern Linux versions (that have modern SMB support) do not support the ancient CPUs and hardware in the legacy devices.
There’s a belief amongst some users that the reason for this was due to the Linux kernel being restricted to the 32 Meg memory on the older devices. We have hope that now that Sonos has indicated the 32 Meg devices are being moved to a “legacy” status, there’s some hope that one of the new features coming up in May will be a new kernel, that while not fitting on a 32 Meg device, will include an update to the SMB protocol for the ‘modern’ devices.
Or, if they’re creating a legacy build, then rather than just freezing the latest bloated build they could strip out all the ‘stuff’ that legacy can’t support anyway - e.g. voice - thereby leaving space for a larger kernel.
I dread the day Sonos e-mails me to tell me to add my Zone Players and Play 5 Gen 1 systems to the junk pile with my CR-100s. I may have to go back and follow the example of folks that disabled Sonos updates to keep their CR-100s alive at that point.
And here we are…
I came here to look for solutions for streaming from my Synology w/o SMB1 enabled. I can't believe there's no SMB2 support. IMHO, this is the pitfall of forcing all devices to run the same software and not making a central control/distribution device that could be upgraded periodically and allow legacy satelite speakers to remain relevant.
Do you play a single stream, even if you then group speakers together? If so, you could run a music server (qhich doesn’t need SMB 1 enabled) on your Synology, using something like Hificast (free with ads, a feww UKP to remove ads) to cast directly to the Sonos speakers. This just treats the speaker as ‘dumb’, so I use a Chromecast audio to keep both options open.
Userlevel 7
+22
I’m hoping to see Sonos on a newer Linux kernel too, it will bring the latest SMB along with all the other features.
In the meanwhile the easy solution is a Raspberry Pi Zero W computer and a few minutes tweaking it to be an SMB v1 gateway for whatever file sharing you want to use on your NAS. I’ve tried it with whatever SMB Windows 10 uses, XFS, FAT and EXT 4 as source file systems.
https://stan-miller.livejournal.com/357.html
There is also an SMB v1 server configuration there if you want the Pi to do the storage as well as providing the SMB v1 share. That is what I’m using now.
There’s a belief amongst some users that the reason for this was due to the Linux kernel being restricted to the 32 Meg memory on the older devices. We have hope that now that Sonos has indicated the 32 Meg devices are being moved to a “legacy” status, there’s some hope that one of the new features coming up in May will be a new kernel, that while not fitting on a 32 Meg device, will include an update to the SMB protocol for the ‘modern’ devices.
Userlevel 1
I dread the day Sonos e-mails me to tell me to add my Zone Players and Play 5 Gen 1 systems to the junk pile with my CR-100s. I may have to go back and follow the example of folks that disabled Sonos updates to keep their CR-100s alive at that point.
And here we are…
I came here to look for solutions for streaming from my Synology w/o SMB1 enabled. I can't believe there's no SMB2 support. IMHO, this is the pitfall of forcing all devices to run the same software and not making a central control/distribution device that could be upgraded periodically and allow legacy satelite speakers to remain relevant.
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.
Userlevel 7
+23
No, that is SMAPI, which is indeed open. I am referring to whatever SonosLibraryService.exe exposes, which is some kind of http-endpoint used to share files from PCs with Sonos players. (I assume something similar runs on Macs).
I wish Sonos would just publish the web service protocol they use now for sharing files on the PC
isn’t it already open?
Userlevel 7
+22
That would be a great option, folks rolling their own NAS devices would have incentive to port it to their gear and it would be a selling point for NAS manufacturers with little cost to them.
Userlevel 7
+23
I wish Sonos would just publish the web service protocol they use now for sharing files on the PC (and I assume the Mac), then the NAS folks could implement that, then SMBv1 would be gone forever.
Userlevel 7
+22
From Sonos’ side it would likely be cheaper to just drop SMB when v1 is no longer viable and move to NFS or other shareable network file system. Probably free up some storage/memory space too.
I’m sure Sonos will update their kernel as soon as they’re willing to cause 50% of deployed speakers to stop functioning.
hmm. Interesting. The release notes for 4.11.0 also state…
As Microsoft no longer installs SMB1 support in recent releases
or uninstalls it after 30 days without usage, the Samba Team
tries to get remove the SMB1 usage as much as possible.
So I guess SMB1’s days are (rightly!) numbered at this point, but not _quite_ completely dead yet. tick tock sonos...
Userlevel 7
+20
Samba has apparently removed support for SMB1 from their stable releases (4.11.x series).
Not quite. They’re defaulting to SMB v1 disabled, but it can still be enabled. They state:
SMB1 is officially deprecated and might be removed step by step in the following years. If you have a strong requirement for SMB1 (except for supporting old Linux Kernels), please file a bug at https://bugzilla.samba.org and let us know about the details.
See: https://github.com/samba-team/samba/blob/59cca4c5d699be80b4ed22b40d8914787415c507/WHATSNEW.txt
Samba has apparently removed support for SMB1 from their stable releases (4.11.x series).
Luckily samba 4.10.x will still be supported with security releases for a little while.
Userlevel 1
From a simple user perspective, the fact that only SMB1 is supported is a complete joke.
I'm a concerned they stop supporting NAS completely, let alone latest security.
Userlevel 1
Maybe Sonos does not need more than a software option: A.) System has older devices with limited memory and thus limited to SMB1 and B.) Newer devices only with more memory and SMB2/3. If Option A was default then those who so wanted could upgrade devices and get SMB2 over NAS. I would go for that ASAP if Sonos gave me the option. Currently I'm very reluctant to purchase any more Sonos equipment as I'm worried that Sonos will not continue to support NAS with the latest security features; rather focusing on streaming only. As an early adopter of Sonos I am a bit annoyed that part of the original core functionality is starting to be obsolete... I'm not interested in work arounds with a Rasberry PI, PLEX or something like that.
Userlevel 7
+22
Sounds like an excellent plan for Sonos to follow, they do need a bit more help though. Where are they supposed to store the new much larger binaries when the Device is powered down and how do they make space in the internal RAM for them to run?
Better a few folks that need this kind of stuff deal with their issues than many thousand Sonos devices go the way of the CR-100 and Dock.
Better a few folks that need this kind of stuff deal with their issues than many thousand Sonos devices go the way of the CR-100 and Dock.
Userlevel 1
So I should buy another device because sonos can't update past a protocol that's been deprecated for over 5 years? Any buy adding another device I create a major well-known security hole in my network?
Seems like amateur hour. Just add support for v2/v3 from any of the zillion of libraries that support it. Likely even a modern version of whatever they are currently using. Seems like major laziness to me.
Is it really so odd that the same people who spend thousands on even a small home audio system would also happen to spend a few hundred on a home NAS?
Seems like amateur hour. Just add support for v2/v3 from any of the zillion of libraries that support it. Likely even a modern version of whatever they are currently using. Seems like major laziness to me.
Is it really so odd that the same people who spend thousands on even a small home audio system would also happen to spend a few hundred on a home NAS?
Page 11 / 12
Reply
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.