On 10/19/2010 12:45 PM, Eric A. Hall wrote: > Both responses show STATUS_SUCCESS in the SMB message. The only potential > difference that I can see between them is that the Samba response shows > "Security signatures are not supported" in the reply message. Perhaps this > is preventing the client from following up with the LANMAN request to > enumerate the servers? Also I have long since set the registry options > needed for signatures, and this same configuration was working before the > upgrade. Did something about this change recently?
Yes, yes it did. The old install had "server signing = auto" but this seems to break the new one. Setting the following options fixes it: server signing = disabled smb encrypt = disabled Is there a paper discussing these options in detail? Is there something I should add to my group policy files to make this work better? -- Eric A. Hall http://www.eric-a-hall.com/ Network Technology Research Group http://www.ntrg.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba