[Samba] Problem with SMBFS vs CIFS

Chris Smith smb23 at realcomputerguy.com
Tue Feb 19 17:54:35 GMT 2008

On Friday 01 February 2008, Felix Miata wrote:
> If you have Win9x and/or OS/2 shares on your network, you'll need to
> recompile your SUSE kernel to include SMBFS support to provide
> acceptable access to those shares.

I think cifs should be able to work in those cases, but I can't 
personally verify it. See page 4 of the cifs client documentation at: 

2) mount syntax:
mounting to older servers (those prior to1997) may require specifying 
two additional fields beyond those which smbfs required:

a) The server's netbios (RFC1001) name AND the server's tcp (or ip ) 
address. CIFS does not assume, as smbfs did, that the tcp name and the 
netbios name of the server are the same. The netbios name of the server 
is specified by passing the mount option “servern=SERVERNAME” and is 
not assumed to be necessarily the same as the tcp name of the server 
(also note that the netbios name is usually capitalized). Both tcp/ip 
name and netbios name have to be specified for mounts for most old 
lanman servers. For example:
mount -t cifs //tcp-name-of-server/sharename /mnt -o 

b) A security option allowing weaker password hashes to be used. 
Specifying “sec=lanman” in the mount options allows the client to send 
weaker lanman hashes to the server. Older servers such as Windows 98 
require this. Mounting to more current servers with stronger 
authentication (ntlmv2) typically requires an additional mount option 
(unless the security flags are changed in /proc/fs/cifs) “sec=ntlmv2”


More information about the samba mailing list