* the client sends a Tree Connect AndX Request
specifying the correct share path but only '00' as the
password
* the server responds with STATUS_WRONG_PASSWORD.
The fact that, with cifs, the password is not being
sent at the same time as the share specification would
seem to suggest that
Thanks once again, Adam. Some more comments below...
--- Adam Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* the client sends a Tree Connect AndX Request
specifying the correct share path but only '00' as
the
password
* the server responds with STATUS_WRONG_PASSWORD.
This indeed does appear
Pure speculation here, but maybe the kernel-space
samba client process gets confused and sends the read
request on the newly negotiated connection, which
causes confusion to ensue.
What version of Samba are you running on the client?
If you suspect it's a problem with the client, try using
What version of Samba are you running on the client?
3.0.10, as opposed to what I believe is 3.0.2 on the
server.
If you suspect it's a problem with the client, try
using the userspace
program smbclient to reproduce the problem.
I tried to reproduce with smbclient, but failed. I
opened
Hello folks.
I bought a Western Digital NetCenter drive since it
seemed a low-cost way of having a NAS in my home. The
NetCenter drives run GPL'ed software (I downloaded the
source from Western Digital's Web site, and it refers
to Broadcom's BCM478x Linux NASoC Software. The src
directory also
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 06:04:18PM -0700, samba newbie wrote:
Hello folks.
I bought a Western Digital NetCenter drive since it
seemed a low-cost way of having a NAS in my home. The
NetCenter drives run GPL'ed software (I downloaded the
source from Western Digital's Web site, and it refers
I think this is because the mount is trying to do user-level
authentication (since it correctly sends my share-level password, but
also reports to the server that the user is 'root').
There is no documentation on the mount.cifs man page
to force share-level authentication.
User-level and
Adam,
THank you for responding. Further questions below...
--- Adam Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
User-level and share-level authentication are only
terms for
configuring the server, they both appear the same
way on the client.
OK, then I need to rephrase my point here: any ideas
why
