mount -t smbfs succeeds, but gives "access denied" upon access, smbclient just works

[Filip Sneppe]

Hi,

This is my first post to a Samba mailing list.

I am trying to mount a share on a Windows 2003 server. The mount
operation succeeds using "mount -t smbfs" but I get an access
denied error from the shell when doing things list "ls". When using
smbclient, everything just works.

A google search results in a lot of people reporting this or similar
problems, but none of the links I found pointed to a solution.

I have looked at an Ethereal network capture of both scenarios, and
here is what I observe (differences between both):
(If need be, I can put the trace file online)

*** smbfs ***

- The negotiate protocol request, in the Flags2 section of the
  SMB header, has the "extended security negotiation" bit set
- The negotiate protocol response contains the following fields
  at the end of the packet: the encryption key, the primary domain,
  and the servername
- The session setup andX request: extended security negotiation
  is off here
- the session setup andx response is successful
- Then there is a Tree connect andX request and response
- finally, there is a "Trans2 Request, QUERY_PATH_INFO, Query
  File All Info, Path: \".
  The response is and Access denied error.

*** smbclient ***

- negotiate protocol request: "extended security negotiation"
  bit is not set
- The negotiate protocol response contains the following fields
  at the end of the packet: the server GUID, and a "security blob"
- The session setup andX request: extended security negotiation
  if on here.
  There are other differences here. Ethereal decodes the packet as
  "NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE"
- The response is decoded by Ethereal as "NTLMSSP_CHALLENGE,
  Error: STATUS_MORE_PROCESSING_REQUIRED", then there's
  another session setup andX request and response.
- Then there is a tree connect andX request
- Here, things are very different from the smbmount: here we get
  a "check directory request, Directory: \" according to Ethereal.
  Here the response is successful.

I know there are differences between "mount -t smbfs" and
smbclient, as far as SMB/CIFS protocol support goes - I have the
following questions though:

- Is this problem caused by any lack of protocol options in
  smbfs ?
- If so, is this something that can/will this be fixed in the future ?
- If not, is there anything that can be done to fix this from the
  command-line ? Any smb.conf tweaks ?
- Could any registry tweaks on the 2003 machine change anything ?
- Currently, the machine is running 2.4. Would switching to 2.6 and
  switching to cifs make any difference ?

Thanks in advance for any help on this. It would be nice if some
SMB/CIFS protocol gurus could enlighten the world on this, as
I cannot find a lot of useful info on this problem ...

Regards,
Filip