IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Hey Greg - Samba question
I've got a device on my network that is
supplied by a vendor. It is Caldera Linux,
running Samba.

I've setup a regular Linux user, as well as a smbpasswd
added user.

\n[broom@mash prisma_bin]$ smbclient -L XXX.25.223.131 -N\nAnonymous login successful\nDomain=[PRISMA-EAST] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 2.2.8]\n\n        Sharename       Type      Comment\n        ---------       ----      -------\n        u               Disk      U-Filesystem\n        hotdirs         Disk      Hotdir top level\n        simplex         Disk      Simplex Hot Folder\n        duplex          Disk      Duplex Hot Folder\n        simplex-pn3-f   Disk      Simplex Hot Folder for Printnet 3 with f-def=f100ld\n        duplex-pn3-f1   Disk      Duplex Hot Folder for Printnet 3 with F-def=f100ls\n        IPC$            IPC       IPC Service (Oce Prisma East Samba Server)\n        ADMIN$          Disk      IPC Service (Oce Prisma East Samba Server)\nAnonymous login successful\nDomain=[PRISMA-EAST] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 2.2.8]\n\n        Server               Comment\n        ---------            -------\n        OCE98450EAST         Oce Prisma East Samba Server\n\n        Workgroup            Master\n        ---------            -------\n        OCE                  WEB4\n        PRISMA-EAST          OCE98450EAST\n        WORKGROUP            OPS\n\n



As you can see, I can talk to it from my Linux
server. But I want to be able to smbclient to
a particular share.

Every attempts tells me my password is wrong.

\n[broom@mash prisma_bin]$  smbclient  //XXX.25.223.131/u -U mashspl\nPassword:\nsession setup failed: NT_STATUS_LOGON_FAILURE\n


The log entry is:

\n[2005/03/26 17:44:08, 0] passdb/pampass.c:smb_pam_passcheck(827)\n  smb_pam_passcheck: PAM: smb_pam_auth failed - Rejecting User mashspl !\n


I've also tried adding the workgroup, ie:
\n smbclient  //XXX.25.223.131/u -U mashspl -W PRISMA-EAST\n


When I use the same smbclient command on the local box, it
lets me in without a problem.

\n[root@oce98684 samba.d]# smbclient  //XXX.25.223.131/u -U mashspl -W PRISMA-EAST\nadded interface ip=XXX.25.223.131 bcast=XXX.25.223.255 nmask=255.255.255.0\nadded interface ip=XXX.25.223.150 bcast=XXX.25.223.255 nmask=255.255.255.0\nPassword:\nDomain=[PRISMA-EAST] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 2.2.8]\nsmb: \\>\n


I can also connect to it from my WinXP laptop using the same
name and password without a problem, so it has to be specific
to mash.

Any ideas?

Note: I cannot update the Samba software on the box, out
of my control area.
New Probably netbios issues
As that is the only thing I can think of.

Netbios is disabled on Mash, because it is not needed and W2K/WXP/W2K3 will only use port 445 if it is available.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey

[link|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"]
No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
New Would it be bad to enable it?
Security implication?
Stability?
How is mash able to be a server and not a client.
New Okay, Shouldn't be a problem.
Make these changes.

ports = 139 445

And comment out the: netbios disabled = yes
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey

[link|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"]
No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
New Same result
Make the change, bounced smb.

One thing I noticed.

When I use smbclient (when it works) I notice the "added interface" lines, ie:
added interface ip=XXX.25.223.131 bcast=XXX.25.223.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
added interface ip=XXX.25.223.150 bcast=XXX.25.223.255 nmask=255.255.255.0

But I never see that when I do it from mash.
New Hmmm
Did you guys add an Inteface to MASH?

Or assign a second IP to that Interface?
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey

[link|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"]
No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
New Nope
New I am going to be doing the
updated Tomorrow Afternoon, I'll try a few things.

If you could make a limited user I can use on the appliance, to test things.

Send me an e-mail.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey

[link|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"]
No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
New emailed
     Hey Greg - Samba question - (broomberg) - (8)
         Probably netbios issues - (folkert) - (7)
             Would it be bad to enable it? - (broomberg) - (6)
                 Okay, Shouldn't be a problem. - (folkert) - (5)
                     Same result - (broomberg) - (4)
                         Hmmm - (folkert) - (3)
                             Nope -NT - (broomberg) - (2)
                                 I am going to be doing the - (folkert) - (1)
                                     emailed -NT - (broomberg)

Poke yourself in the eye.
77 ms