Can't connect via SMB

The windows LanMan 1.1 registry change is not a fix for this issue, as previously posted.

Under OSx Lion, SMB functionality was written by scratch by apple, replacing the previous Samba SMB services due to the upgrading of the Samba license to GPL 3, which prevents Apple from using it in a commercial product liek OSx. Under 10.7.x, the Apple SMB support is for SMB2, and not the previous version as this windows hack provides.

The other technaratti here can correct any inaccuracies, but if you are creating an SMB share on OSx 10.7.x, which has a windows 7 client (also SMB2 by default), this will not fix the problem.

Oops! With all the exitement I didn't have a chance to read through all the 86 posts. Very weird; after logging out the clients and logging them back in, the Mac server is gone from the Windows PC's. I reverted the changes and now everything is working fine on all PC's. I hope that tomorrow everything still works. I'm almost convinced that there is a Gremlin inside my network.

My Gremlin has not surfaced yet. It's been 8 hours and all my Win 7 Pro and XP Pro machines can see and access my Mac Mini Server. I upgraded to 10.7.3 and still works. I'll keep my fingers crossed. We'll see if the Gremlin re-surfaces overnight.

kkausu,

About those folder rights on 2008 R2 server. Noticed few days ago, that OS X with VPN connection doesn't understand Bypass Traverse Checking (on by default on 2008). That caused some problems for us.

In short what it mean:

There's a shared folder in \\server\share. Users don't have any right for the share folder itself, just for some subfolders there. For example \\server\share\user. Bypass Traverse Checking on 2008 allows users to access user folder, even though they don't have any right on the share folder.

Now that OS X has problems with Bypass Traverse Checking, Finder reports that user cannot connect to \\server\share\user as there are no permissions. Setting Traverse Folder / Execute file rights to users fixes this, as it allows people with OS X to do what they're supposed to be allowed already.

As for removing the Traverse Folder / Execute file rights on users, it's quite pointless, unless there's some modifications for local security policies (see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc739389(WS.10).aspx). Traverse Folder / Execute files doesn't actually let people to "see" those folders, it just allows them to move past them to some subfolder they have rights to. Meaning connecting to \\server\share doesn't show them anything (probably doesn't even allow them to connect), but it let's them to connect \\server\share\user if they have rights to it.

Hope this helps someone someday, atleast it fixed some problems here. Even though I'd really like to see working the way it was intended 🙂

The connection with my Amiga is also no more working. 😟

I am using Samba 2.2.5 und with Snow it was working fine. With Lion 10.7.3 I can see the Amiga in the finder, but if I try to connect, I get the message that this server version is not supported.

Only using Midnight Commander, I am able to connect and to exchange files!

SMB issues are NOT resolved with 10.7.3, it's better but still not there. I removed Samba and MacPorts and reconfigured my system to use the native SMB implementation in 10.7.3. Good news is that I can now see and connect to my main Mac system from my Windows 7 systems. The issues I am still having:

Seems that I have to remove and re-add the users to the SMB panel after each reboot before the connections work.

Streaming large video files is not working. They start to stream but within a few minutes they lock up.

Going back to Samba 3 again for now...

"Seems that I have to remove and re-add the users to the SMB panel after each reboot before the connections work."

I think this is related to the race condition I outlined a couple of months ago, in which the authentication services come up after the SMB service, but there is no dependency or wait implemented by Apple.

If connecting Win7 --> OSx and you can turn off the service and turn it on a minute after reboot and it works, then that is the problem. I scripted the stuff below and stuck it in the startup flow. Reference my previous post on in this thread.

sleep 60

sudo serveradmin stop smb

sleep 5

sudo serveradmin start smb

I am a network administrator and I found 1 workaroud so far...

Scenario: Unbound Lion Machine needs access to Windows 2008 Domain shares

If you just use smb://server/share it WILL work. You will see the authentication box, enter your Windows User Name and password. And a mere 15 minutes later the share WILL open.

If you think that is too much of a lag you can:

Create a user profile that uses the windows user name and password. It all works like magic. Just like it should. Shares mount on boot and everything.

Doesn't work so well, if like me you connect to shares on 10 or 12 networks.

The issue I have seen is that Lion is passing the local user name and password to Windows and it waits and waits. After a while it actually passes the credentials you entered.

I hope this helps someone somewhere.

I hope Apple fixes this problem because I can't upgrade until they do.

You should. The switch in Lion is finally forcing dozens of manufacturers to move their behinds and update what's now a two-decades old protocol famous for being the slowest and least secure out there.

Boxee, for example, now supports Lion's SMB implementation. Tons of others are doing the same and Samba itself has also switched gears to ensure their implementation is up to par.

Let's not forget Apple is implementing what's been the official version of the SMB protocol for years, which is also publicly available. And what Samba used to provide was an older, inefficient, hacked-together, reverse-engineered version of two dozen protocols collectively called "SMB/CIFS".

So, you probably shouldn't like that Apple has forced people to do this, but the update itself is a GOOD thing. It's a bit like when the iMacs only came with USB. It was a burden but it was GOOD for everyone (not just Macs or Mac Users).

There will be glitches, because not all services have upgraded yet and because it's a new implementation. But the fact that it's done on a documented protocol instead of the spaghetti that is Samba is a good thing.

Of course Eduardo isn't telling us that the same forced implementation of smb that others were using is also the one apple was using until Stallman turned the tables on them with gpl 3 at which point they dropped the forced reversed engineered one and decided to get off their behinds to implement their own version... Witt the great results that we ve been witnessing from it recently...

I posted in this thread a few months back, and besides being shocked that we still don't have an acceptable workaround, I feel the need to express my frustration.

Among the many alternatives provided, none are truly solutions. My solution excludes GUI which ostracizes a large user base. Other solutions I've seen involve sacrificing security or efficiency by using a default account or forcing the IT staff of a company to add as many new accounts to their servers as their are Mac users trying to connect.

I still think the bug is in the OS X GUI, if it was the protocol itself then using a Terminal command shouldn't work, right? Either way the entire reason I bought a Mac was so I wouldn't have to deal with similar shenanigans. I just want it to function, and couldn't care less if it's using an outdated 1980's protocol model. That would be better than not functioning.

Getting other companies to update their protocols is great, but that should not come at the expense of the User. Excluding a compatible SMB package is forcing their own Customers into a corner, NOT these other companies.

It's "great" that Boxee now has support for Lion's SMB, but I'll bet it was working with Windows SMB from the start. What are the odds of a Windows Update to patch compatibility on Windows with Lion's SMB? I won't keep my fingers crossed.

Hey, hey there. Take it easy, buddy.

I'm neither an "apologist" nor a "denialist". I'm not saying nor implying apple The Saviour has come to deliver us from the shackles of Samba or some other nonsense you seem to imply. I'm saying changing from the old samba is a GOOD thing. It is a good thing regardless of how it affects us.

I mentioned the iMac with all-USB very pointedly because it was a similar situation. ADB was an outdated format that kept being used because everyone used it. Dismissing it angered a lot of people but it was better for everyone in the end (not only macs, as it jumpstarted the whole USB ecosystem for all platforms).

The Samba team decided to switch licenses in 2007. FIVE YEARS AGO. This wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision from Apple. They can't, put simply, keep including any versions of Samba newer than 3.0.2 (as in 3.2.0 is when the license changed). The effort Apple kept pouring making Samba compatible with newer versions of OS X and the quality of the 3.0.2 and all its bugs and security holes didn't help things out. In the end Apple decided to put that effort into being compatible with the newer protocol and this has been painful because it's a 1.0 version and it'll have glitches that need ironing out (so far all three Lion updates have fixed parts of the SMB implementation).

The odds of Boxee providing support to the SMB version (not "Lion's SMB", but "Windows Vista's SMB") were pretty high, since newer versions of Samba support it (but can't be included in OS X due to license conficlits). Same with the rest of devices, who'll now decide to start updating their Samba versions as well.

Apple was the only major player using Samba and that forced them to create an alternative when they couldn't use it any more. SMB2 is not Apple's protocol, but Microsoft's, and it's fully documented. Any glitch between Lion and Windows is product of 1.0 bugs, whereas any problem communicating between Lion and Samba is a product of a difference in SMB versions.

Again: I'm not saying, nor implying, that Apple decided to support the newer SMB2 and drop the older SMB1 out of their kind hearts when looking out for us, users. Their actions are driven by more pedestrian reasons, obviously. If Samba hadn't decided to move to a license incompatible with OS X Apple wouldn't have switched versions (and since there're really no "alternatives" to Samba other than using Windows, they had to create their own).

Also, please note: Lion's changes are on the SMB servers. The SMB client hasn't been Samba for years.

I was bitten by the changes from Lion same as a lot of people, so much so that I developed a free tool called SMBUp that allows the user to install Samba and its dependencies and configure it, eliminating Apple's SMB implementation. I'm not being an apologist of anything if I myself had to hack my way into the old protocol as hundreds more. But I can see how in the larger picture moving away from SMB1 (a protocol I know and understand how limited, slow and insecure it is) to SMB2 (the only other protocol that can reliably talk to Windows) is a GOOD thing. Even if they were forced to do it.

Get off your high horse and try not to read so much into other people's comments. I'm sorry you have been inconvenienced by Apple's decisions but don't lash out on others.

Excuse me Eduardo, you are coming here talking about people's behinds being pushed by apple and writing GOOD in capitals and I am matching your tone in response. A more moderate, and a more truthful response on your part would have warranted a more moderate response on my part. So don't project this back onto me.

Apple opted to go for the reverse engineered (garbage as you imply) one instead of opting to cough up whatever license costs to microsoft it had to pay (I presume) or development on their own earlier, because the open source community was offering it up to apple to use it. When the, say, questionable, gpl3 came to pass that would have apple as I see it keeping their end of their deal in the code they used, they opted to ditch it and implement a new version to go along with smb2.

That's all good and well but apple that doesn't fit very well with your initial argument that somehow apple is doing it to motivate third party manufacturers to move along with the times, so the usb analogy falls sort imho.

At the end of the day, apple offloaded their decisions to the end user and caused a lot of frustration to them. And and no point did they own up that teething problems with their implementation was causing people a lot of issues in daily rudimentary usage of their macs. They probably should have started implemented smb2 concurrently much earlier to avoid this. Or in any case to have had a way to revert back to 3.02 of samba if such basic funtionality as allowing a network share and searching within it could not be seemlessly implemented. Instead they have relied to a string of apologists and denialists (and I am not including you here, out of courtesy) in these fora to do their dirty work of denying that there is a problem to begin with.

In a .3 os update when the problem doesn't seem to be fixed, and at the current growth rate and immense wealth of apple, the largest tech company in the world, they should have more decency, and grandeur to accept error and offer some apologies, because that's how they 'll gain respect. I on the other hand that connect with my many macs in my work network via smb and can't search via the finder, I am not expected at 2012 when I buy their premium products to show patience and understanding, much as I wouldn't be expected if I bought an expensive car to not be able to drive down a small country road without getting flat tires every other day. But if I turn up with my brand new mac minis, all three of them, at the apple store and tell them to stick them cause none of them can connect reliably to windows networks at work, at home, and at friend's houses, and I 've spent the last three days researching this and getting frustrated, they I will have some motor mouth employe of the month whitewashing the issue away, they will not accept responsibility, and they certainly won't accept the computer back. Cause we all know of course computers are bugggy things and we expect to get grief from them.

But for a company with a leader that professed (and to a point was honest about it) why don't computers just work like washing machines or fridges without having to break down every other week in basic tasks, why don't they just work, now that they are the largest tech company in the world, now that tech has matured as far as it has that they should start putting their money were their mouth is. I am putting my money where my mouth is in my work, I don't go telling people when they I can't do for them one of the basic tasks that I am hired to do, sorry, just pay me though, nor that there isn't a problem to begin with.

This protocol, that protocol, smb, samba, smb2, gpl 2, gpl 3, who cares at the end of the day, we might be geeks to care a bit about these but we are not idiots, they can't handle os development on time, they should hire more people, god knows they can afford it, I shouldn't be affording my time to fix their issues for not affording more people to do more development for the os. That's one of the reasons why the usb analogy does not work as well, cause apple circa 2000 had limited resources, and they had to make bold choices and have the foresight that they would be the right ones. Now they have the resources to not keep relying on the open source community and off load development to them, and to do some inhouse development too in such basic things as fundamental network protocols to communicate with windows, and to start on time, and not give trouble to their (very loyal indeed - at least up to now) user base because of their slowness and ineptness. And when do that to own up to it, instead of relying on the minions in the forums to rationalize the problem away.

I have to say though in conclusion, that I appreciate your efforts in coming up with tools for this situation having said all that I've said, as well as your knowledge of the nuances of network protocols, and I accept that the discussion might have started on the wrong foot by both parts. If you accept we both said what we had to say, I want to leave it, amicably, at that.

Wow, did I pull a trigger or something? This thread suddenly got intense.

Eduardo, if your reply was to me then please know my complaint was not directed at you. Rather, I was expressing my frustrations with Apple's latest OS and it's Client SMB implementation.

I have been following this thread since I upgraded to Lion in August; my response was not just to your post but to every post that has occurred since that time.

This thread has both consumer and server related posts, yours was ambiguous so I ask that you forgive me if I misinterpreted your words.

However, there was no misinterpreting your opinion, and whatever the product I couldn't disagree more. Forcing the average consumer to deal with missing functionality until other companies comply is a terrible business tactic.

New functionality should be added beside existing services. Replacing a service before it has been widely accepted is not a wise policy if you want to keep your customers.

It also doesn't logically make sense, when Apple has established a reputation for providing a no-hassle experience.

I agree with applesuper that any attempt to support their decision comes off sounding like an excuse. I would also be curious to know, if the license change occurred in 2007, how did Snow Leopard in 2009 feature it? Or are you saying it was stuck at 3.0.2 without any updates? Even then, I would consider that better than nothing.

I agree with applesuper that any attempt to support their decision comes off sounding like an excuse. I would also be curious to know, if the license change occurred in 2007, how did Snow Leopard in 2009 feature it? Or are you saying it was stuck at 3.0.2 without any updates?

Being able to explain the reasoning behind an action should never be taken as an excuse. When I say that the change is "GOOD" I mean that it is so for everone in the long run. I don't say that Apple did the change to make that good (or for any reason other than commercial and risk-avoidance ones).

Apple was stuck with the old version of Samba until it couldn't keep it any more. Every update to it was made by Apple itself to cover for security holes and bugs to that specific version, sometimes even backporting fixes from later versions (these were made mostly by James Peach, a name that gets stuck in your head, especially working at Apple).

The change to the license meant Apple couldn't sign Samba binaries (as it would be forced to share the encryption signature, rendering the whole point moot). "Signing" is a for of simple encryption that ensures a file hasn't been tampered with and it's done for security. Since Snow Leopard it's possible to sign binaries (all App Store binaries are signed) and in Lion all apple-provided binaries are signed.

The problem with being stuck with that older version of Samba and the way SMB and Netbios work means they couldn't have implemented SMB2 as long as that version was there. Their only two options would've been either implement an unsigned version of Samba 3.6 (which supports SMB2) or make their own replacement server(1). It's obvious which way they had to go.

Again: I'm not saying their decision was good for us, nor that it was made thinking on the good of the community or the protocols. I'm just saying the long-term benefit of their decision (regardless of reasons) is a good ("GOOD" even) one.

As to whether it's a good or bad business tactic neither you nor I can probably predict whether this will have the least bit of effect in their business (I'd be willing to bet it won't) but the fact that Samba was the slowest network protocol out there and that it was supposedly provided as "Windows Networking" and thus replacing it with the official "Windows Networking" protocol (SMB2) doesn't make it sound like a bad business decision. Definitively similar to USB in iMac (or losing Firewire in their own ipods, a connector they owned yet was a losing bet in the overall scheme of things).

Apple was the only Samba player large enough to make a difference so their dropping of it should definitively kick the rest of devices, especially since Windows is supposedly also planning to drop SMB1 from Windows soon (with good reason, the protocol is a nest of snakes and wasps, a frankenstenian result of a different age, regardless of how useful it's proven).

There's only one place where I think Apple should've done things differently: Upon upgrading it should warned users that it was dropping SMB1 support altogether (with an explanation on why or not, doesn't matter). It would at least have provided a fair warning (although web sites reported it far and wide they can't replace an official note from Apple).

Lastly, I repeat yet again: Being able to explain their actions doesn't mean justifying them (although it does mean understanding their position, even if not shared by any of us).

(1)"Server" because the client has been the same for years, built internally by Apple, most problems appearing in the client in Lion are related to the new netbios daemon, which replaces nmbd from Samba, which has got all-new end-user screens as well.