I've used LanMan98 successfully for a number of years requiring SMB
1.0/CIFS Server (has security issues) to be switched 'ON' for it to
work.

As an alternative I've tried Sunfish on RISC OS and an NFS server
(FreeNFS from Sourceforge) on Windows 10. FreeNFS fails to work - it
hasn't been developed for many years. Can anyone recommend an
up-to-date NFS server?

There isn't a version of Moonfish for the PC - at least I can't find
one.

Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <586f89d2b9basura@invalid.addr.uk>,
Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> wrote:

I've used LanMan98 successfully for a number of years requiring SMB
1.0/CIFS Server (has security issues) to be switched 'ON' for it to
work.

As an alternative I've tried Sunfish on RISC OS and an NFS server
(FreeNFS from Sourceforge) on Windows 10. FreeNFS fails to work - it
hasn't been developed for many years. Can anyone recommend an
up-to-date NFS server?

There isn't a version of Moonfish for the PC - at least I can't find
one.

Richard

If you google "NFS on Windows 10"

You get some options. Not tried any myself.

Richard Darby.

--

Richard Darby.
website: http://www.rjdarby.co.uk
Do not reply to this address all mail is deleted.
Reply to: <my first name> at <my domain>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <586f89d2b9basura@invalid.addr.uk>,
Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> wrote:

I've used LanMan98 successfully for a number of years requiring SMB
1.0/CIFS Server (has security issues) to be switched 'ON' for it to
work.

As an alternative I've tried Sunfish on RISC OS and an NFS server
(FreeNFS from Sourceforge) on Windows 10. FreeNFS fails to work - it
hasn't been developed for many years. Can anyone recommend an
up-to-date NFS server?

There isn't a version of Moonfish for the PC - at least I can't find
one.

Personally, although I have got Sunfish setup to access my NAS boxes
I don't like the interface or the security method it uses and I I'm
very unsure what to trust as a moonfish client to install on a PC. I
stick with Lanman98, not perfect but it works and in my opinion, has
a nicer user experience.

I can see that I'm likely to get slaughtered for this but....
Isn't this about reducing risk without killing the golden goose?

If we use RO for email and not Windows that must reduce risk a little.

Then it has to be accepted that if a virus gets on a PC on your
network the risk of it spreading to other PCs depends on how open
your network is and how much coding effort the virus creator was
prepared to do. I accept that you cannot guarantee that a clever
coder can't get passed you unless you physically disconnect a PC from
the network.

Lanman98 only needs SMB1 server, it does not need SMB1 client. So I
have removed the client from my 3 W10 PCs. My thinking is that to
jump from one PC to another using SMB1 it will need a client on the
ground zero machine. What I don't know for sure is - can an SMB2/3
only client make use of a low security SMB1 server, I hope not.

Yes, a coder could write a client in the virus, or turn on the
windows client, I get that but is it likely given that this method of
network infection is well documented and MS have been at pains to
remove SMB1 client and server from everyone's machine.

I'll put my tin hat on now.


Cheers,

Bob.

--
Bob Latham
Stourbridge, West Midlands

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <586ff6bfd1bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

Lanman98 only needs SMB1 server, it does not need SMB1 client.

LanMan98 /is/ an SMB1 client. SMB1 only.

David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/05/2020 11:47, Bob Latham wrote:

Then it has to be accepted that if a virus gets on a PC on your
network the risk of it spreading to other PCs depends on how open
your network is and how much coding effort the virus creator was
prepared to do. I accept that you cannot guarantee that a clever
coder can't get passed you unless you physically disconnect a PC from
the network.

Lanman98 only needs SMB1 server, it does not need SMB1 client. So I
have removed the client from my 3 W10 PCs. My thinking is that to
jump from one PC to another using SMB1 it will need a client on the
ground zero machine. What I don't know for sure is - can an SMB2/3
only client make use of a low security SMB1 server, I hope not.

If a virus gets on to *your* PC, it will be able to access any networked storage secured with your credentials, regardless of what protocol is
used. i.e. If you can do it, it can do it.

The only issue having to maintain an SMBv1 sever for SMBv1 clients such
as Lanman98, is that its easy for anything that can get on to your
network to break SMBv1's trivial security. So don't run an unsecured
WiFi access point or expose SMB ports to the internet.

---druck

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <ecf30c7058.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

In message <586ff6bfd1bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

Lanman98 only needs SMB1 server, it does not need SMB1 client.

LanMan98 /is/ an SMB1 client. SMB1 only.

I believe Bob is saying that the Windows boxes don't need an SMB1 client.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <586ff6bfd1bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <586f89d2b9basura@invalid.addr.uk>, Richard Ashbery
<basura@invalid.addr.uk> wrote:

I've used LanMan98 successfully for a number of years requiring
SMB 1.0/CIFS Server (has security issues) to be switched 'ON' for
it to work.

As an alternative I've tried Sunfish on RISC OS and an NFS server
(FreeNFS from Sourceforge) on Windows 10. FreeNFS fails to work -
it hasn't been developed for many years. Can anyone recommend an
up-to-date NFS server?

There isn't a version of Moonfish for the PC - at least I can't
find one.

Personally, although I have got Sunfish setup to access my NAS
boxes I don't like the interface or the security method it uses and
I I'm very unsure what to trust as a moonfish client to install on
a PC. I stick with Lanman98, not perfect but it works and in my
opinion, has a nicer user experience.

I know what you mean - I've looked at the Allegro NFS Server but I've
no idea about how easy it is to setup. Its expensive at 65 dollars.
Although there seems to be a 30 day trial offering I'm not sure I want
to go to the trouble and expense.

I agree with you about LanMan98. Its dead easy to use and does the job
without complication.

I can see that I'm likely to get slaughtered for this but....

Not from me ;-)

Isn't
this about reducing risk without killing the golden goose?

Agreed

[snip lots of interesting stuff about network security]

Lanman98 only needs SMB1 server, it does not need SMB1 client. So I
have removed the client from my 3 W10 PCs.

By ticking "SMB 1.0/CIFS Automatic Removal" option or some other
method?

My thinking is that to
jump from one PC to another using SMB1 it will need a client on the
ground zero machine. What I don't know for sure is - can an SMB2/3
only client make use of a low security SMB1 server, I hope not.

So do I.

Yes, a coder could write a client in the virus, or turn on the
windows client, I get that but is it likely given that this method
of network infection is well documented and MS have been at pains
to remove SMB1 client and server from everyone's machine.

SMB1 is still available but from what you are implying not for much
longer - RISC OS users will be at a disadvantage I fear.

I'll put my tin hat on now.

Where's Druck ;-)

Regards

Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <r9h3u6$jdi$1@dont-email.me>,
druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:

The only issue having to maintain an SMBv1 sever for SMBv1 clients
such as Lanman98, is that its easy for anything that can get on to
your network to break SMBv1's trivial security. So don't run an
unsecured WiFi access point or expose SMB ports to the internet.

Brilliant, thanks for that.

Bob.

--
Bob Latham
Stourbridge, West Midlands

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <5870121122tim@invalid.org.uk>,
Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

In article <ecf30c7058.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

In message <586ff6bfd1bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

Lanman98 only needs SMB1 server, it does not need SMB1 client.

LanMan98 /is/ an SMB1 client. SMB1 only.

I believe Bob is saying that the Windows boxes don't need an SMB1
client.

Yes indeed.

Thanks Tim.

Cheers,

Bob.

--
Bob Latham
Stourbridge, West Midlands

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <58701135a0basura@invalid.addr.uk>,
Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> wrote:

In article <586ff6bfd1bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <586f89d2b9basura@invalid.addr.uk>, Richard Ashbery
<basura@invalid.addr.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

Lanman98 only needs SMB1 server, it does not need SMB1 client. So
I have removed the client from my 3 W10 PCs.

By ticking "SMB 1.0/CIFS Automatic Removal" option or some other
method?

I simply unticked the box for the client and the removal tool as I
don't want either to operate ever again.

[Snip]

SMB1 is still available but from what you are implying not for much
longer - RISC OS users will be at a disadvantage I fear.

It wasn't my intention to imply the end of SMB1. I simply don't know.

MS could decide that there is still a danger for many people and
organisations from SMB1 and decide to kill it once and for all. It
may be that people could find a way to install something else I don't
know.

Or, as MS have twice defaulted SMB1 to off on updates, they could
consider that anyone with it still active is conscious of the issue
and needs SMB1. If so, they may turn it off periodically but perhaps
they don't see a need to destroy it.

Where's Druck ;-)

He popped in earlier and very helpful he was too.

One thing I remain in the dark about is SMB1 on Synology NAS boxes.
I've been dreading the same problem on them and you can switch it off
now but I've seen no attempt to force the issue like with MS. I'd
like to know why?

As my NAS boxes are not available from the internet, any sign of SMB1
being killed on them and I'll stop updating the OS.


Cheers,

Bob.

--
Bob Latham
Stourbridge, West Midlands

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)