SMB2 (or SMB3) support must be supported NOW!

I agree with the previous posters. Sonos needs to start thinking about security for its customers. If this isn’t fixed, I will be moving away from Sonos altogether. 
This is a dealbreaker for me. 

Oh, forgot to add, I don’t work for Sonos and I have not been quiet or kind to them over many of their decisions that have had negative impacts on me.

A 20 minute / 20 buck fix to a minor problem just doesn’t rise to that level.

Stanley, thanks for the summary. That explains it more clearly than the other posts I’d been flipping through. 

I don’t fully understand the kernal memory issue as I’m not that technical. Does Sonos still use the same kernal on both the S1/S2 hardware, so is that why the S2 hardware won’t be updated with a kernel supporting SMB2, even though S1 is now legacy equipment?

Compared to the power that a Sonos device uses in sleep mode, roughly 3 to 8 Watts depending on the device, the 1 Watt that a Pi Zero draws isn’t much.

https://support.sonos.com/s/article/256?language=en_US

Yes I have done that but I wonder how long Synology will provide that!

My first choice would be for Sonos to drop SMB v1 and enable the new versions too.

As an alternative you can easily set up a gateway from your NAS, using any Linux supported protocol to the required SMB v1 for Sonos.

Not great but is sure beats burning your Sonos gear in the drive in protest. :-)

@Simmo1969 has already posted a solution in this thread. 

Synology, to my knowledge, maintains no official presence in these Sonos forums. You may be better off contacting their CS directly, as posting your unhappiness here likely has no impact on them (although will hopefully stoke the fires for Sonos, but we’ll have to see).

The method by which the speakers reach the shared location is via SMB v1, the same can not be said for the controller running on your computer. With SMB v1 now active, I would recommend that you submit a system diagnostic, and call Sonos Support to discuss it, or post the diagnostic number here for a Community Moderator to pick up.

There may be information included in the diagnostic that will help Sonos pinpoint the issue and help you find a solution.

When you speak directly to the phone folks, there are more options available beyond just the diagnostic analysis. 

I’ve not read all of it (and I won’t), but I read the sum up of page 6 of Stanley 4.
If not smb2/3 because of explained reasons then why not nfs? As far as I know NFS is smaller, less cpu intensive and more light weight than samba. (Samba/cifs comes from the windows side)
NFS is even linux nativ and most(good) NAS systems provide that as well.

I currently share my music via nfs to a virtual machine which is running nothing else than a samba server providing smbv1 as I don’t want that on my main server. And all that only for sonos.
I did spend some money on sonos, but I’m still missing a lot of devices across the house, I’m currently considering selling them and move to a different product if the situation does not improve.
After all, those devices are far away from cheap. One could expect that they spent some of that money in hardware that is more future proof than “that one kernel version that they build at day 1”.
I know many people that did not buy sonos just because of this situation here and they still laugh at me.

This is pure speculation but I could imagine that the real reason for them still running that same old kernel is because the’ve lost the one person building/maintaining it and now its a “black box” and nobody dares to touch it.

I’d buy in to that pure speculation, if I hadn’t have been in similar situations in the past, where only one person on the team had specific knowledge, and when that team member left, it was a pretty quick decision to have not only a rewrite of the software done, but ensure it was properly annotated, and multiple people were able to maintain it. That has happened to me, exactly once, and will never again. 

My own speculation remains that there isn’t enough available memory in the S1 devices to implement a new, larger, and SMB v x>1 kernel. Which is why I have some hopes that the next version of Sonos S2 that isn’t just bug fixes, will include a new kernel. I have zero expectations that any S1 only device would get it, so those who are running S2 capable devices under S1 would not garner the benefit. 

Sonos only offers the HTTP option for Windows and Mac, not NAS devices.

Security flaws in SMB v1 aren’t very scary as long as the SB v1 device contains no sensitive information of any kind. Also for Sonos use there is no reason not to firewall the SMB server away from the Internet completely.

NFS might be an option but it would also require some additional storage and memory and the older Sonos have been having features removed, some of which appear to have been removed to open up memory for newer features. Sonos releases little so all is based on speculation, not facts but it sure looks like a low memory situation. 

I’ll stick to one of two options, a dedicated SMB v1 Sonos music server, my current option. Second a NAS (any supported Linux protocol) to SMB v1 Gateway. Neither of which require any sensitive data. The Gateway, if using WiFi and not Ethernet will need your WiFi password though.

That would indeed be odd, since both of those run on your local device or the server,and not on the limited memory of the Sonos equipment.