SMB2 (or SMB3) support must be supported NOW!

I have read your posts elsewhere on using a raspberry pi as a Gateway.  For a dozen years I was running a dlink 323 only for Sonos and leaving it on SMB1.  That box has died and my main NAS which I won’t allow the unsecured smb1 to run on could certainly hold my ~20,000 tracks and the gateway idea seems to make sense.  I am far more proficient at networking than I am at coding…. and I’ve never used a pi but I love the idea of what you present and the cost is lower which is great.  The comments that you make about how to set that up seem generally simple to follow but I was curious if that is a complete instruction set or if that is a small portion of a much larger assumption that someone would have complete understanding of setting up the pi?  Also is there a general security issue with having any device running version one even the pi as a Gateway? That would not itself cause the issues that we are trying to avoid?

You are correct. These security issue are not software bugs tied to a specific implementation of SMBv1 (say a particular version of Linux vs Mac OS vs Windows). There are fundamental security design flaws in older versions of SMB that can only be fixed by changing the protocol itself - thus SMBv2, v3, etc.

The ridiculous part of this thread is conflating old devices, backward compatibility, and a seemingly very reasonable request for Sonos to keep a feature they still support working at “industry standard” level on NEW hardware.

As others have said; if old devices cannot handle an SMBv2/v3 client library due to their firmware - leave them with SMBv1 support - they’re old and that’s what they started with. But limiting new devices to an insecure protocol that is not supported by many modern SMB “servers” is crazy. OTOH; new devices probably should keep allowing SMBv1 (if a user configures that) as the opposite problem exists; ancient NASes that don’t support new versions of SMB.

But workarounds telling people there are many ways to still run SMBv1 don’t address the main two issues: (1) Sonos support for SMB is decreasing in quality if that doesn’t mean “any common, modern SMB compatible server” and (2) no one should want to run ANYTHING with SMBv1 as the protocol; that’s why all the distros and commercial OSes are dropping support. Workaround are fine to help each other; but they don’t execute lack of a real product commitment response from Sonos.

Since you already have a NAS the Raspberry Pi gateway will be your cheapest option. Pick up a minimal Raspberry Pi Zero-W kit. Follow the instructions here and it should be working with no issues.

https://stan-miller.livejournal.com/357.html

If you want a wired Ethernet instead of WiFi connection then one of the Pis with wired Ethernet would be the way to go. A used Pi 3b, 3b+ would be less but a 4 2GB would work as well.

-----

Without a NAS the SMB v1 file server setup is the better option.

https://stan-miller.livejournal.com/650.html

If you have a problem PM me so we don’t clutter up the forum with non-sonos troubleshooting posts.

There has been much discussion of why Sonos does not support SMB v2 or 3, rather than rehash it again after so many past times I’l leave you to dig up the old topics if you care.

If you can address the issues seen there I’m sure the Sonos folks would be more than happy to forward your solutions to their tech folks who are stumped by the issue.

I’m fascinated by your assumption that their tech folks are stumped by the issue.

I’ve got some questions, if you’d be so kind:

• How many engineers does Sonos have?
• How large of a team would it require, if our assumption of the fact that the previous kernel would need to be replaced, would it take?
• Are you familiar enough with the Sonos code base to have an educated opinion as to how much time and effort is involved?
• Have you done scheduling for Sonos engineers, and are familiar with their velocity, and the challenges in dealing with the issue?
• Given that they’ve written a new system (S2], and integrated a couple of new features (HD radio and LPCM for the Arc), and had to work through the issues raised by the pandemic, and done a bit of bug fixing, how are you arriving at the fact that they’ve had time, much less are stumped by the issue?
• Are you familiar with their backlog, and management requests for feature prioritization?

Unfortunately, I don’t have answers to any of those questions. I’m unwilling to cast aspersions, unless someone can show that the Sonos staff is willfully sitting on their behinds, and ignoring the issue. I’d like to think not, but I don’t know. 

Re-reading that rant don’t you feel a bit embarrassed?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just ask “Why do you think they are stumped?”

If you ask me to stuff an elephant into a phone booth and I can’t do it, how is pointing that out insulting to me? The Sonos folks are in exactly the same situation trying to stuff a modern kernel and Samba into the limited legacy Sonos hardware.

In any case, I based that ‘stumped’ on seeing some discussion between the Sonos folks and the Samba developers on getting the current Samba to work on the latest Sonos kernel. I was not party to the details but as nothing came of it I’m going with stumped.

I guess some of you are already aware, just to state here that Synology new OS (DSM 7.0) currently does not support anymore SMB1, and it seems it’s not planned to do so.

Such an issue for NAS users!

Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this information? I’ve just spent five minutes on Google, looking for this data, and haven’t been successful in finding it. 

Hi,

yeah I am following this thread in the Synology forum here 

ciao

mk

Thank you most kindly!

Edit… looks like Zappiti has a similar issue as does Sonos...not enough space to update their kernel.