[Samba] Cannot access the (old) samba server on my router from Linux

[Rowland Penny]

On 02/09/15 18:06, Luca Olivetti wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my isp provided me with an ont+wireless router combo.
> The router can share via samba a mounted usb thumb drive.
> The problem is that it's a very old samba version (apparently 
> 1.9.16p10) and I cannot access it from Linux:
>
> luca at seis:~$ smbclient -s /dev/null -L 192.168.10.1
> Enter luca's password:
> Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 1.9.16p10]
> tree connect failed: NT_STATUS_BAD_NETWORK_NAME
>
>
> I tried also with -d 10, but it doesn't give too much information, 
> e.g. these are the last few lines of output:
>
> Connecting to 192.168.10.1 at port 445
> Connecting to 192.168.10.1 at port 139
> Socket options:
>         SO_KEEPALIVE = 0
>         SO_REUSEADDR = 0
>         SO_BROADCAST = 0
>         TCP_NODELAY = 1
>         TCP_KEEPCNT = 9
>         TCP_KEEPIDLE = 7200
>         TCP_KEEPINTVL = 75
>         IPTOS_LOWDELAY = 0
>         IPTOS_THROUGHPUT = 0
>         SO_REUSEPORT = 0
>         SO_SNDBUF = 87040
>         SO_RCVBUF = 372480
>         SO_SNDLOWAT = 1
>         SO_RCVLOWAT = 1
>         SO_SNDTIMEO = 0
>         SO_RCVTIMEO = 0
>         TCP_QUICKACK = 1
>         TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT = 0
>  session request ok
> cli_init_creds: user luca domain WORKGROUP
> Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 1.9.16p10]
>  session setup ok
> tree connect failed: NT_STATUS_BAD_NETWORK_NAME
>
>
> The behaviour is even stranger if I use mount.cifs:
>
> luca at seis:~$ sudo mount -t cifs -o guest //192.168.10.1/rootdir test
> luca at seis:~$ LC_ALL= LANG= sudo ls -l test
> ls: cannot access test/b: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/e: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/k: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/s: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/t: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/l: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/p: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/u: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/h: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/r: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/w: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/u: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/s: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/t: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/t: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/l: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/d: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/m: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/w: No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access test/v: No such file or directory
> total 0
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? b
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? d
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? e
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? h
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? k
> -????????? ? ? ? ?            ? l
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? l
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? m
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? p
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? r
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? s
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? s
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? t
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? t
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? t
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? u
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? u
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? v
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? w
> d????????? ? ? ? ?            ? w
>
> Needless to say, everything works fine with windows (and of course 
> those single letter directories are completely bogus).
>
> Looking with wireshark, the main difference I see is that smbclient 
> does a "Session Setup AndX Request" which succeeds and then does a 
> "Tree Connect AndX Request, Path: \\192.168.10.1\IPC$" which fails 
> ("Invalid network name. Service not found"), while a "net view" from 
> windows does a "Session Setup AndX Request, User: WETRON\luca; Tree 
> Connect AndX, Path: \\192.168.10.1\IPC$" in a single step.
>
> Note that, when listing the files, both from Linux and from windows 
> the reply to FIND_FIRST2 appears to be the same, bogus, one from 
> wireshark ("Trans2 Response, FIND_FIRST2, Files: b e k s t l p u h r w 
> u s t t l d m w v") but windows manages to show the correct directory 
> listing.
> Most probably the bug is in wireshark (copied from samba?), since the 
> correct filenames are visible in the raw reply.
>
>
> Any hint?
>
> Bye

I would go back to your ISP and ask them why they are supplying a router 
that uses a version of samba that is about 18 years old. Also if samba 
is this old, what version of linux is it running and how old is that, 
there are possibly major security implications here.

Rowland