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 3 / 12
I just started using Sonos and tried to connect to a Synology NAS. The S2 controller was showing error messages that made no sense (https://support.sonos.com/s/article/262?language=en_US&utm_source=cr-care&utm_medium=serverstack&utm_campaign=de-cr-care-serverstack).
I finally found this and reactivated SMB1 which I feel uncomfortable with because it is old and full of security flaws.
Sonos need to get their act together and implement SMB3 asap.
controlav,
With respect, please go back and read my first post.
If the controller is able to serve the bytes of the local files, why can it not serve the bytes of files on an SMBv2/3 share?
I imagine that the Venn diagram of people that own at least one Sonos speaker, a NAS - but a network that lacks the throughput for this operation looks a little asymmetric.
If the controller is able to add multiple local directories to share via a local HTTP service, it can also add the ability to proxy bytes that aren’t hosted on a local drive. I’ve written this same chunk of code myself. This issue is easily solvable without touching the speaker at all.
Userlevel 7
+21
All
Sonos have confirmed they are looking into SMB upgrades. See this thread:-
Danny, you can stop feeding now ;)
Presumably, that means you think I’m a troll. That’s not the case.
But, I don’t enjoy discussions with someone that’s being intentionally obtuse. I guess that makes me a troll.
I didn’t see it as a trolling case personally. Perhaps a matter of semantics, but the incorrect idea that the controller software is involved in the delivery of music to the speakers is a common one I get that you’re intermingling the Sonos software for control and software/service is involved with delivery of local libraries, and that difference is irrelevant to you...but lack of clarity on the role of the Sonos controller software has caused much confusion in other discussions.
Hello everyone, thanks to the introduction of our S2 platform, we've now added support for SMBv3. Sonos S2 devices will use the highest version of SMB supported by your NAS device. To access this update, you may need to manually change the configuration of your NAS device.
Great news Sotiris - I’ve been struggling to get my library to work with Sonos since SMB1 became deprecated by pretty much everyone apart from Sonos. Album artwork is a bit laggy.
(I tried Plex - which was flaky for CD quality FLAC files)
Hey, please switch to secure SMB and NTLM Versions. After upgrade of Synology DSM 7 and NTLMv1 is not activated anymore, I have no access to my music library. I use it many times for the kids. So please switch to a proper and secure protocol. Thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Ronald
Are you telling me that if I swap all my Sonos speakers for current Sonos speakers that NTLMv2 will then work and currently only the fallback to NTMLv1 is performed by the Sonos speakers because there are a few older Play:1 speakers hanging in the system? If that's the case, I'll swap for the Play:One tomorrow. All other speakers (Play5:Gen2, Move, Roam, etc.) should then be NTLMv2 compatible, as there are certainly enough large memory chips in them to process the little Linux kernel.
Does anyone know why Sonos doesn’t support SMB2 or SMB3?
Userlevel 7
+23
Are you telling me that if I swap all my Sonos speakers for current Sonos speakers that NTLMv2 will then work and currently only the fallback to NTMLv1 is performed by the Sonos speakers because there are a few older Play:1 speakers hanging in the system? If that's the case, I'll swap for the Play:One tomorrow. All other speakers (Play5:Gen2, Move, Roam, etc.) should then be NTLMv2 compatible, as there are certainly enough large memory chips in them to process the little Linux kernel.
There are signs that an updated SMB stack is on its way, for S2 devices. The recent regression with non ascii characters on the Sonos SL implies that changes are afoot, so there are faint signs of hope.
Userlevel 7
+23
I’m just hoping Sonos doesn’t just drop SMB sharing and make the whole problem go away. That would be the easy path, couple edits to the source code and push an update and POOF, no more SMB complaints.
That is certainly one solution. If they published the http sharing protocol, maybe with a node sample app, they could do that and folks could just run the node app on their NASs. That would even work with S1 systems without having to change them.
Userlevel 7
+23
Been covered here ad nauseam. Given the size of this thread, probably several times in this one alone.
Been covered here ad nauseam. Given the size of this thread, probably several times in this one alone.
I read the full thread but all I see is speculation. Is there an official answer on why SMB2/3 isn’t supported?
Support for SMB1 is removed from Synology DSM 7. Many folks might update their NAS, only to find Sonos can no longer connect. SMB1 is being removed from lots of platforms due to security issues, and with all the hacks / ransomware out there, it will stay removed. We need a clear ETA for Sonos to support SMB2 / SMB3.
Yeap, I really didn't see this coming. Not from Synology point of view rather from Sonos. They got them self locked on a technology that should have been out of use for like years already. Incredible. Only purpose I had them actually is smb music library. Now that is not possible anymore.
You can go for a “fix” using Docker. Most Synology’s can run it.
have a look here:
When you do be sure that SMB is read only for the use that logs in AND that the data is mounted also read only. So… when a bit locker or something else wants to change your music it will not possible to do so 
Please do not comprise your NAS security by chasing the security to “lower settings”
I’ve got it running, works great.
and yes… at the end Adonis should fix this, but they do not seem to be in a hurry… they advertise Plex as a solution… hope they will take this seriously and come with a fix from Sonos!
Been covered here ad nauseam. Given the size of this thread, probably several times in this one alone.
I read the full thread but all I see is speculation. Is there an official answer on why SMB2/3 isn’t supported?
If you’ve read the full thread you’ll know there is no official answer.
Userlevel 6
+15
Hi
Synology NAS drives often revert to not allowing SMBv1 after updating, mind checking that the Minimum SMB version is set to SMB 1? Here’s some guidance from the Synology website on adjusting SMB settings.
Let us know if that helps :)
Userlevel 7
+22
If NFS wasn't such a nightmare to support I'd be happy to see it instead of SMB now that the Windows need for SMB has ended.
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.
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.
I’ll just add my 2 cents, and say “me too” - I also have an extensive NAS-based media collection which I’d like to be able to play with my Sonos gear (without resorting to SMB1).
I can serve it all up via Plex, but I’d also much prefer a (simple) http solution - it’s a pretty trivial amount of code for Sonos to write, they already have lots of HTTP handling in their code, so have all the libraries in place. They now just need the will to do it.
Requiring SMB1 as a pre-requisite to play local music ought to be illegal. It’s at the very least amateur-hour hobby-kit level of operation - not something a premium brand should be anywhere near.
I thought additional SMB support has been around for a while:
I’ll just add my 2 cents, and say “me too” - I also have an extensive NAS-based media collection which I’d like to be able to play with my Sonos gear (without resorting to SMB1).
I can serve it all up via Plex, but I’d also much prefer a (simple) http solution - it’s a pretty trivial amount of code for Sonos to write, they already have lots of HTTP handling in their code, so have all the libraries in place. They now just need the will to do it.
Requiring SMB1 as a pre-requisite to play local music ought to be illegal. It’s at the very least amateur-hour hobby-kit level of operation - not something a premium brand should be anywhere near.
Nice rant. Too bad it's about 2 and a half years past its expiration date.
(anyone listening) am I right in thinking that the only way the SMB1 or NTLMv1 weaknesses can be exploited is if the offending party or software has a valid login to the server with the password (and this would have to be in the list of local users or internal system users on the device) so if I have a few trusted users and my passwords are all very strong (and I’m careful about what I install and the access given to programs) then the SMB issue isn’t really much of an issue at all?
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
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.
Just avoid the issue with a NAS to SMBv1 gateway and take it off your worry list.
A Raspberry Pi or other computer will work: https://stan-miller.livejournal.com/357.html
Such a shame that the “solution” requires yet another box burning electricity when we should be trying to reduce energy consumption.
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….
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.
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.
Page 3 / 12
Reply
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.