Has smbclient behavior changed from 2.2.8a to 3.0.0?

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:16:08AM -0600, Steven French wrote:
> >Forcing smbclient to connect to port 139
> >*should* fix the problem, since NetServerEnum2 is supported on port 139.

> >If you grab a trace of smbclient 3.0.9, please verify that it is
> >connecting on 139 rather than 445.

> This line of investigation based on the port number makes no sense.
> NetServerEnum2 (and the other RAP calls) should be the same on both 139 and
> 445 - at some level NetServerEnum2 is just an SMB transact and no one has
> theorized that basic SMB operations (other than session establishment) act
> differently on the two ports.   The 139 and 445 calls end up in the same
> place.   Other theories - security settings, restrictions on client
> computer name, restrictions on anonymous connections etc. seem more likely.

Er, NetServerEnum2 is a call used to query information related to
NetBIOS.  There is no NetBIOS layer on port 445, so there's no
particular reason why Windows would /want/ to support this call on port
445; and they indeed appear not to.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20031105/d61e3a38/attachment.bin