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 9 / 12
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 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.
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.
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.
Userlevel 7
+21
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.
2 years after this post SONOS have still not resolved this issue. They forced us to upgrade to V2 products to “enable new functionality” but their customers security apparently isn’t important to them. BlueSound do recognise the issues with SMBv1!
Sonos have confirmed they are working on the issue and plan for SMB 3 support. No date has been given, nor is that likely to be given until it arrives.
I suggest you go with Bluesound if it is that vital to you. Not sure what the forcing was for S2 is about, none of the new functions affects the prime music playing functions, it was more to support new devices from what i can see, as well as Dolby Atmos
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.
I got my Synology already working with SMBv2 for a while and shared my experience in this post
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
I got my Synology already working with SMBv2 for a while and shared my experience in this post
Could be. If you disable smb1 then Sonos speaker auto connected to smb2 (obviously). What I did is left smb1 and risen the maximum smb to smb3. Speaker auto recognized it and connected to smb3. Later on I completely disabled smb1 and all continued to work.
So, to solve Sonos to Synology interconnection either disable smb v1 or allow smb3 as maximum smb allowed. This worked to you or latter to me.
Michel,
May I recommend that you read the thread in which you’ve posted?
Userlevel 7
+22
You can easily create a NAS to SMB v1 gateway on most any computer so that you don’t have to run v1 on your NAS.
This is specifically for a Pi but the same basic settings should work about anywhere.
https://stan-miller.livejournal.com/357.html
Waiting / asking for a newer version has not been productive, I’ve been waiting since v2 came out in 2006.
wow, that seems complicated and I’m on a mac :(
Userlevel 7
+22
Having the newer options available would be noce, many of us had hoped to see them with the S2 release and were disapointed they didn’t make the cut.
The setup isn’t too bad, really just a few edits to existing files. Another option is to just use the Pi as your Sonos Music Library which is what I do here. A Pi Zero-W (you need the W, not just the Zero) will do the job and is often available for $5.00 just add a USB power supply and a micro SD card and you are good.
https://stan-miller.livejournal.com/650.html
Pi is cheaper elsewhere but Amazon is easy to link to. You’d want this kit and a SD card that is shown below the Pi section.
https://smile.amazon.com/CanaKit-Raspberry-Wireless-Official-Supply/dp/B071L2ZQZX/ref=sr_1_7
think i’ll just buy a $50 NAS drive on eBay and leave it as that
A bigger concern for me would be if Sonos want to stop supporting local file servers completely. Sonos is under a lot of pressure from the cloud crowd to focus only on Amazon music, Spotify, Google Play, Soundcloud, etc, etc…
There is a lot of money and politics involved. No big business want you to play your files from home. Not a single company thinks this is good for their bottom line. Myself I have been running local file servers with my Sonos farm since 2006, and this is the one reason I have stuck with Sonos. If Sonos ditched local file support I might just as well use my Echo Dots and get some cheap amps for those in listening locations.
But I realize I might be a dying minority that don't pay a monthly fee to listen to the music I have already bought.
That’s interesting. Given that they don’t make any money from any streaming service’s monthly subscription, I’m not sure I would understand any real pressure, other than that of supporting what people are doing generally. But I too would be distressed if they were to remove that capability.
That’s interesting. Given that they don’t make any money from any streaming service’s monthly subscription, I’m not sure I would understand any real pressure, other than that of supporting what people are doing generally. But I too would be distressed if they were to remove that capability.
Plenty of effort and probably considerable political maneuvering has been spent on supporting Alexa integration (and lately Google support.)
When you are talking to your Sonos One you are unable to request your local music, but have to request Amazon music. Coincidence? What do you think Amazon would like you to play, in return for all the generous support they spent on helping with the Sonos/Alexa integration? There are Alexa skills for turning random stuff on and off around your house, for crying out loud. Do you think the built-in Alexa capability *really* couldn't tell your Sonos to play Rammstein from your local library if they wanted that to happen?
So as a user group we find support for our local music libraries being in the background. We are on a deprecated file system. We have no support for voice integration. And all the big guys are trying to push Sonos over to their echo systems. Our days might be numbered.
Ah, understood. My apologies if my response also sounded terse, the reasons around this have, as you’ve seen, been discussed over and over in this thread. As has the fact that Sonos doesn’t tell us what is on, or when we should see anything from the roadmap.
As you’ve seen from controlav’s posts, there are some hopeful signs. However, certainly I was hoping for forward movement long before this date, but having been in these sorts of software update processes before, am not surprised it hass taken this long. The real question is still whether or not Sonos considers this an important enough issue (probably decided by number of users, which has been previously conjectured to be in the single digit percentages) for them to dedicate coding resources to.
As has been stated before, we just don’t know, and we won’t know, until or even if Sonos releases it.
Being a user of local files myself, I certainly have hopes that it will come to pass. But I’m also not holding my breath.
Userlevel 7
+14
That’s interesting. Given that they don’t make any money from any streaming service’s monthly subscription, I’m not sure I would understand any real pressure, other than that of supporting what people are doing generally. But I too would be distressed if they were to remove that capability.
That’s true historically right, but do we know the current state? Maybe they’ve sold out with S2 and we dont know it lol. Also Have they monetized their data collection? - I know they don’t sell my personal data, but what about aggregate? Don’t forget about Sonos radio, they’ve monetized that!.
This doesn’t lead me to thinking they will drop local music support. But they’ve been neglecting this for a long time, besides the smb issue, real lack of new features added to local playback, so maybe
Just pure baseless speculation on my part.
@SONOS: please finally add the SMB2 support that has been requested for years to your products, at least for the S2 product line ... and don't think too long about it, just do it, it's time to finally deliver.
Thanks and best regards
Userlevel 7
+14
That’s true historically right, but do we know the current state? Maybe they’ve sold out with S2 and we dont know it lol. Also Have they monetized their data collection? - I know they don’t sell my personal data, but what about aggregate? Don’t forget about Sonos radio, they’ve monetized that!.
I don't think you need to worry about data collection from Sonos for streaming services. There is nothing left to collect. Amazon, Google or Spotify is already collecting everything with surgical precision every time you play a track, since these services handle everything for Sonos.
I don't think you need to worry about data collection for playing your local library either. If data collection was their intent they would have been a lot more eager to support local services….
I’m not worried about data collection, could care less!
That might work if you assume that Sonos hasn’t made the change out of spite, rather than a forced business decision.
If you read the thread, it’s relatively certain that the issue has more to do with available memory on the devices to contain a Linux kernel that’s been updated to use higher versions of SMB. Not some sneaky desire to repress people like me who play from their NAS almost exclusively.
I’m not worried about data collection, could care less!
I was responding to your comment “I know they don’t sell my personal data, but what about aggregate”
It is not very likely that they do, as there isn't anything left to sell.
Curious as to how they’ve monetized Sonos Radio. I’m not paying a subscription fee to Sonos, so far….or to anyone else. Unless you mean the same advertising as terrestrial radio already has.
A bigger concern for me would be if Sonos want to stop supporting local file servers completely.
……….
But I realize I might be a dying minority that don't pay a monthly fee to listen to the music I have already bought.
Same here… I’ve tried out a few subscription services, but I’d have to buy into multiple services simply to access the range of music that I already ‘own’.
I haven’t automatically accepted any updates since 5.x, when (from my point of view) they messed up the interface, and currently lock down everything tight unless I have a real need to open anything up. Usually updating costs me money - e.g. yet another perfectly capable device is obsolete, from a Sonos point of view.
I think that we just have to accept that we are no longer the target audience, and take whatever steps are necessary to be able to use our kit in the way that we want to, until it dies. I feel much happier now that suitable alternatives are available - and not only much cheaper but more capable. I speak as someone, though, who has no need for multi-room in sync playing, so my options are perhaps more open than some.
Page 9 / 12
Reply
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.