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.
SMB2 (or SMB3) support must be supported NOW!
64 people like this
- jet
- phoopt
- Virginia_1
- Bas Nultien
- User966103
- michelenascondino
- beetle777
- trinpete
- Topbrick1
- lolakatkin
- TedKy
- vkerzman
- Rick0930
- Mononcyves
- Barnbarroch
- MotoBella
- rjla
- lynfisk
- iansb
- REALLYFEDUPWITHSONOS
- BrendaLC
- Alan Bentley
- IJC
- wgvibe
- Why Username
- GSB31632
- combatexec
- markkino
- Raina
- klrmlr
- H Neal Hart
- Fuck This
- Passiflore
- Sophia Suzanna
- packet40
- CMJOmaha
- Bunion
- Frank p.
- oh2binadk
- Ken 354
- Zeloom
- WouldLikeBetterSoftware
- g2el
- Mamaneeds1
- jbchristo
- Adzo 1955
- BenTenTenTen
- boringoldfart
- DogNTallGrass
- GordonN
- tomwa01
- Flinc
- KPO
- ptl1960
- ADMRes
- Rhood939
- DotDorothy
- MichaelGR23894
- Swell in Oakland
- Pool n pond guy
- Irishlass
- IceBoston
- Paul-E
- rtntosender
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
In many ways I agree with you. I resent having to run a sacrificial NAS purely to support Sonos. As you say, the Plex approach for Sonos is very poor.
However, if it was a simple thing for them to do I then I suspect that they would already have done it. The more likely scenario is that there's a larger overhead on later versions of SMB, which could mean that older units would stop working (e.g. ZP80/90 etc) - something that the community would find very undesirable. Sonos do seem committed to keeping their own hardware running as long as possible. Also, they are not very interested in local files these days, as apparently the future is streaming.
I've been exploring alternatives lately, and found that you can use a casting app to cast direct to the Sonos device, using a media server on a NAS with SMB1 disabled. This doesn't seem as reliable/convenient as one would wish, but adding a Chromecast Audio into the line in makes a huge difference. I run the CCA into a Play5 and it can then be chosen as a source for other devices. On the AV amp I run the CCA direct, bypassing the ZP90. I'm still using the Sonos software at the moment, but this seems a valid back-up plan should my devices go belly-up. I don't really think that Sonos meets my needs even now, so don't see it as a viable option into the future - consequently, if the devices fail, then I doubt that I'd replace them.
However, if it was a simple thing for them to do I then I suspect that they would already have done it. The more likely scenario is that there's a larger overhead on later versions of SMB, which could mean that older units would stop working (e.g. ZP80/90 etc) - something that the community would find very undesirable. Sonos do seem committed to keeping their own hardware running as long as possible. Also, they are not very interested in local files these days, as apparently the future is streaming.
I've been exploring alternatives lately, and found that you can use a casting app to cast direct to the Sonos device, using a media server on a NAS with SMB1 disabled. This doesn't seem as reliable/convenient as one would wish, but adding a Chromecast Audio into the line in makes a huge difference. I run the CCA into a Play5 and it can then be chosen as a source for other devices. On the AV amp I run the CCA direct, bypassing the ZP90. I'm still using the Sonos software at the moment, but this seems a valid back-up plan should my devices go belly-up. I don't really think that Sonos meets my needs even now, so don't see it as a viable option into the future - consequently, if the devices fail, then I doubt that I'd replace them.
+6Williams_Nest wrote:
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.
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.
Some posters here provide good advice that you can deal with the issue by moving your music to a cheap nas such as an rpi.
Ive read the opinion here (posted by users who seem to know the big picture) that it isn't possible to update the older players (such as zp80/zp100, maybe zp90/120) to smb 2/3. So rather than cutting off older players they leave as is.
Sonos has local library to stagnate (have they added any new features since 2012, maybe I'm wrong) and imo it is more likely they delete this than update it until they brick older players.
+23Peagle wrote:
Sonos has local library to stagnate (have they added any new features since 2012, maybe I'm wrong) and imo it is more likely they delete this than update it until they brick older players.
Its not quite stagnated: to avoid the SMB1 problem they stopped using SMB for PC shares, using a custom http server instead.
Deprecating SMB entirely would kill the NAS users, who are a small percentage of the small percentage of the local library users. PC and Mac local library users, who far outnumber them, would still be fine.
If NFS wasn't such a nightmare to support I'd be happy to see it instead of SMB now that the Windows need for SMB has ended.
I dread the day Sonos e-mails me to tell me to add my Zone Players and Play 5 Gen 1 systems to the junk pile with my CR-100s. I may have to go back and follow the example of folks that disabled Sonos updates to keep their CR-100s alive at that point.
I dread the day Sonos e-mails me to tell me to add my Zone Players and Play 5 Gen 1 systems to the junk pile with my CR-100s. I may have to go back and follow the example of folks that disabled Sonos updates to keep their CR-100s alive at that point.
Stanley_4 wrote:
I dread the day Sonos e-mails me to tell me to add my Zone Players and Play 5 Gen 1 systems to the junk pile with my CR-100s. I may have to go back and follow the example of folks that disabled Sonos updates to keep their CR-100s alive at that point.
Unless you actually have a need for the new facilities, it might be worth doing this sooner rather than later. At least you then have full control over what's happening on the system that you've paid good money for.
Too much aggravation until I need it to keep the old stuff alive.
If I realized the wife had to have the CR-100 to use the Sonos I'd have done it back then.
If I realized the wife had to have the CR-100 to use the Sonos I'd have done it back then.
So I should buy another device because sonos can't update past a protocol that's been deprecated for over 5 years? Any buy adding another device I create a major well-known security hole in my network?
Seems like amateur hour. Just add support for v2/v3 from any of the zillion of libraries that support it. Likely even a modern version of whatever they are currently using. Seems like major laziness to me.
Is it really so odd that the same people who spend thousands on even a small home audio system would also happen to spend a few hundred on a home NAS?
Seems like amateur hour. Just add support for v2/v3 from any of the zillion of libraries that support it. Likely even a modern version of whatever they are currently using. Seems like major laziness to me.
Is it really so odd that the same people who spend thousands on even a small home audio system would also happen to spend a few hundred on a home NAS?
Sounds like an excellent plan for Sonos to follow, they do need a bit more help though. Where are they supposed to store the new much larger binaries when the Device is powered down and how do they make space in the internal RAM for them to run?
Better a few folks that need this kind of stuff deal with their issues than many thousand Sonos devices go the way of the CR-100 and Dock.
Better a few folks that need this kind of stuff deal with their issues than many thousand Sonos devices go the way of the CR-100 and Dock.
Maybe Sonos does not need more than a software option: A.) System has older devices with limited memory and thus limited to SMB1 and B.) Newer devices only with more memory and SMB2/3. If Option A was default then those who so wanted could upgrade devices and get SMB2 over NAS. I would go for that ASAP if Sonos gave me the option. Currently I'm very reluctant to purchase any more Sonos equipment as I'm worried that Sonos will not continue to support NAS with the latest security features; rather focusing on streaming only. As an early adopter of Sonos I am a bit annoyed that part of the original core functionality is starting to be obsolete... I'm not interested in work arounds with a Rasberry PI, PLEX or something like that.
Jespersen wrote:
....... I'm worried that Sonos will not continue to support NAS with the latest security features; rather focusing on streaming only. ....
I'm a concerned they stop supporting NAS completely, let alone latest security.
From a simple user perspective, the fact that only SMB1 is supported is a complete joke.
Samba has apparently removed support for SMB1 from their stable releases (4.11.x series).
Luckily samba 4.10.x will still be supported with security releases for a little while.
+20ixephus wrote:
Samba has apparently removed support for SMB1 from their stable releases (4.11.x series).
Not quite. They’re defaulting to SMB v1 disabled, but it can still be enabled. They state:
SMB1 is officially deprecated and might be removed step by step in the following years. If you have a strong requirement for SMB1 (except for supporting old Linux Kernels), please file a bug at https://bugzilla.samba.org and let us know about the details.
See: https://github.com/samba-team/samba/blob/59cca4c5d699be80b4ed22b40d8914787415c507/WHATSNEW.txt
hmm. Interesting. The release notes for 4.11.0 also state…
As Microsoft no longer installs SMB1 support in recent releases
or uninstalls it after 30 days without usage, the Samba Team
tries to get remove the SMB1 usage as much as possible.
So I guess SMB1’s days are (rightly!) numbered at this point, but not _quite_ completely dead yet. tick tock sonos...
I’m sure Sonos will update their kernel as soon as they’re willing to cause 50% of deployed speakers to stop functioning.
From Sonos’ side it would likely be cheaper to just drop SMB when v1 is no longer viable and move to NFS or other shareable network file system. Probably free up some storage/memory space too.
+23I wish Sonos would just publish the web service protocol they use now for sharing files on the PC (and I assume the Mac), then the NAS folks could implement that, then SMBv1 would be gone forever.
That would be a great option, folks rolling their own NAS devices would have incentive to port it to their gear and it would be a selling point for NAS manufacturers with little cost to them.
controlav wrote:
I wish Sonos would just publish the web service protocol they use now for sharing files on the PC
isn’t it already open?
+23No, that is SMAPI, which is indeed open. I am referring to whatever SonosLibraryService.exe exposes, which is some kind of http-endpoint used to share files from PCs with Sonos players. (I assume something similar runs on Macs).
I bought my NAS solely to supply my own music to Sonos.
Even with Deezer etc there are songs that aren't available to stream.
We don't have computers running 24/7 so it would be a pain if Sonos stopped supporting NAS drives.
Stanley_4 wrote:
I dread the day Sonos e-mails me to tell me to add my Zone Players and Play 5 Gen 1 systems to the junk pile with my CR-100s. I may have to go back and follow the example of folks that disabled Sonos updates to keep their CR-100s alive at that point.
And here we are…
I came here to look for solutions for streaming from my Synology w/o SMB1 enabled. I can't believe there's no SMB2 support. IMHO, this is the pitfall of forcing all devices to run the same software and not making a central control/distribution device that could be upgraded periodically and allow legacy satelite speakers to remain relevant.
There’s a belief amongst some users that the reason for this was due to the Linux kernel being restricted to the 32 Meg memory on the older devices. We have hope that now that Sonos has indicated the 32 Meg devices are being moved to a “legacy” status, there’s some hope that one of the new features coming up in May will be a new kernel, that while not fitting on a 32 Meg device, will include an update to the SMB protocol for the ‘modern’ devices.
I’m hoping to see Sonos on a newer Linux kernel too, it will bring the latest SMB along with all the other features.
In the meanwhile the easy solution is a Raspberry Pi Zero W computer and a few minutes tweaking it to be an SMB v1 gateway for whatever file sharing you want to use on your NAS. I’ve tried it with whatever SMB Windows 10 uses, XFS, FAT and EXT 4 as source file systems.
https://stan-miller.livejournal.com/357.html
There is also an SMB v1 server configuration there if you want the Pi to do the storage as well as providing the SMB v1 share. That is what I’m using now.
norwester wrote:
Stanley_4 wrote:
I dread the day Sonos e-mails me to tell me to add my Zone Players and Play 5 Gen 1 systems to the junk pile with my CR-100s. I may have to go back and follow the example of folks that disabled Sonos updates to keep their CR-100s alive at that point.
And here we are…
I came here to look for solutions for streaming from my Synology w/o SMB1 enabled. I can't believe there's no SMB2 support. IMHO, this is the pitfall of forcing all devices to run the same software and not making a central control/distribution device that could be upgraded periodically and allow legacy satelite speakers to remain relevant.
Do you play a single stream, even if you then group speakers together? If so, you could run a music server (qhich doesn’t need SMB 1 enabled) on your Synology, using something like Hificast (free with ads, a feww UKP to remove ads) to cast directly to the Sonos speakers. This just treats the speaker as ‘dumb’, so I use a Chromecast audio to keep both options open.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.