smbwrapper use of port 139 vs 445... Ok to force to 139?

Derrell.Lipman at Derrell.Lipman at
Mon Dec 23 19:52:00 GMT 2002

My last known problem with smbwrapper on Linux is that sometimes hosts in a
workgroup, or shares on a host, are not returned by the cli_Net*Enum()
functions.  On another list (debian.something), there is currently a
discussion of the fact that using port 445 can cause this problem, and in
fact, when I force the port to 139, the problem goes away.

I'm not terribly familiar with the protocol differences between what's sent on
port 139 and what's sent on port 445.

*Specifically for the purposes of smbwrapper...*

1. Is there a reason not to force the port number to 139?

2. Is there any service provided on port 445, not provided on port 139, that's
   required for smbwrapper to return the correct data?

3. Are there any servers that don't provide port 139 service at all?

4. If #3 is "yes", what about trying 139 and falling back to 445 rather than
   the current implementation which is the other way around?



More information about the samba-technical mailing list