[Samba] 4.2.14 (or newer) support "Windows for Workgroups 3.1a"?

[Gaiseric Vandal]

I would check

client ldap sasl wrapping
client ipc signing
client signing
server signing



Depending on the samba version, the defaults may be different.

Assuming you did not change the default ports , which would be as follows

      smb ports = 445 139



Following the BADLOCK vulnerability, Microsoft released patches faster 
than my OS provider did so I had to tinker with the above settings until 
I restored functionality.

Of course, if your server is also supporting your "regular" users 
(rather than the industrial machines) you are likely to break something 
so you definitely want to have separate servers.   VM's are a pretty 
easy way to implement additional servers with out consuming a lot of 
hardware resources.
















On 04/30/18 13:23, Andrea Baldoni via samba wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:55:24AM -0400, Gaiseric Vandal via samba wrote:
>
> Hello Gaiseric.
>
>> I suspect at this point making Windows 7 and Windows 3.11 interact is a
>> loosing proposition.     It is pretty scary to think that there is still
>> equipment that requires  Windows 3.11.  Hopefully it is air-gapped and not
>> part of the electrical grid.
> I can evaluate different options: I can make a chrooted secondary samba (on
> a different IP) only to serve Windows 3.11 (or a VM with a minimal linux
> inside, eventually) if this could solve my problem. What parameters I should
> try to put to "no" to see if I get the 3.11 to connect? I have a test enviroment
> so I can try without disrupting service.
>
>> Is there a difference between connecting to a share using the server IP name
>> rather than the hostname ?
> No.
>
> Andrea
>