Why switch off SMB1

They must have supported SMB V2 for at least 8 years as my current NAS was configured to use SMB V2 or V3 when I got it 8 years ago and it has always worked with Sonos.

According to the release notes it was added in version 13.4.1 (July 2021)
 

I do recall having to enable v1 in my nas samba config when returning to the Sonos ecosystem after years away from it, which was in June 2021 (according to my system details) but haven’t needed to keep it enabled when building and migrating to a replacement nas or testing things with other servers since then.

Samba.org only disabled v1 by default in 2019, so I would expect the vast majority of new NAS, routers with file sharing and similar style devices (especially consumer targeted rather than enterprise) to have shipped with v1 enabled up until then even if they only showed enabling/disabling v2/v3 as options in the interface.

After 2019 it would require more effort on a device manufacturers part to enable v1 in their firmware if using an upto date samba version (a big if), so new devices since then would be more likely to be off by default as the firmwares for new devices updated. There would still be an overlap on newly sold devices following 2019 due to existing unsold stock and manufacturers just being slow to update nas firmware, assuming they didn’t just end of life the product and all support.

Which would suggest that my NAS was updated by a firmware upgrade that changed the SMB default that I was not aware of. I did not know abut this setting until I checked it out of interest because of teh posts here.

Do you know if there was anything significant about July 2021?

Nothing significant in the wider software/IT side of things, it is just when Sonos released v2/v3 support to their system.

Why it took so long for Sonos to add something MS released in 2006, Linux and open source projects added in 2012 and both had disabled by default a couple of years before only Sonos can explain. Maybe it wasn’t considered a priority, maybe they were waiting for their chip supplier to update software development kits. 🤷

Low powered embedded devices are often in a behind the times situation as the device manufacturer is dependant on the chip supplier updating development kits and drivers. Companies like Apple, Samsung avoid this dependency by controlling both the chip design, production and the software used in their devices, but they also operate at a very different scale and wider product market to Sonos.

As a consumer, while I understand potential technical behind the scenes reasons, I’m paying a premium for someone else to sell me a working product because I’m not interested in building and maintaining something myself.

Smb support has always been an advantage of Sonos for my usage. Being able to point at a shared folder, each speaker can independently access is far nicer than having to run UPnP/dlna server and deal with the random mess of compatibility that brings.

While file share access made sense when Sonos first started out, I suspect if Sonos were starting again now, like 99% of other network Player devices they would just use upnp/dlna rather than file share and avoid the long term development/support commitment file share support brings.

The success or otherwise of upnp/DLNA depends on how it's implemented by the manufacturer - some versions stray from the standard and can be worse than useless. 

Indeed, It’s as much the client device manufacture as the server and control software, with the added fun of the switch/router/WiFi access point manufactures random ability to get igmp snooping/multicast handling right. So many moving parts and variations behind 4 little letters. 🙄

This is where protocols such as slimproto and RAAT become escape routes for users trapped by a 'proprietary' system.  But they aren't even close to plug'n'play so remain ruled out for the majority. Sort of a no pain, no gain situation. 

I am not against higher and more secured versions of Samba, but please do leave an option for those who don't want to update!

At what potential lawsuit situation? Even frivolous lawsuits would be expensive (if they’re possible, I have no idea). I assume there was a reason why SMB v1 was disabled on my Western Digital NAS, too…but I think I’m lucky that I have one where you can modify that setting, my understanding is that some of them don’t give the user access to do so. 

It’s a bit of a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation that crops up all the time when companies finally enforce something long overdue, especially in the consumer market.

Sonos should have dealt with this years ago with clear communication and timelines. They could even have piggybacked the change onto the increasing requests and pleas from Microsoft to disable it as supporting justification when the inevitable loss of access due to consumer nas/routers not supporting v2 occurred.

Airgetlam wrote:

At what potential lawsuit situation? Even frivolous lawsuits would be expensive (if they’re possible, I have no idea). I assume there was a reason why SMB v1 was disabled on my Western Digital NAS, too…but I think I’m lucky that I have one where you can modify that setting, my understanding is that some of them don’t give the user access to do so.

I guess it’s a cultural thing, I’ve never understood the ‘lawsuit’ as a reaction to everything someone doesn’t like. What are you going to claim for?

“Your honour, Sonos owe me damages for finally updating my internet connected device to modern security recommendations. I demand you make them undo the changes and reimplement insecure protocols against the recommendations of the protocol inventor (Microsoft) and the entire IT industry security community”

Microsoft got increasingly desperate in their pleas for people to stop using smb v1, even with people who were supposed to be IT professionals

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/storage-at-microsoft/stop-using-smb1/ba-p/425858