SMB2 (or SMB3) support must be supported NOW!

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. 

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 Usually updating costs me money - e.g. yet another perfectly capable device is obsolete, from a Sonos point of view.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.

Sonos could simply delete SMB support tomorrow (which would be the most secure option), and those of us using PCs or Macs to host music files would still be fine, as SMB is not required for those platforms any more.

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.

Sonos have the telemetry to know how many users rely on file servers, and how many of those use NASs and need SMB support. One can only assume the numbers are small enough for them to not be too concerned about that demographic.

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?

Sure, PM me and I’ll give you the details. Requirement: A NAS platform that can run .NET Core and knowledge of C#.

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? 

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?