Re: Netserver SMB V1 and recommendations against ransomware

Blind-sided, perhaps though that's still a bit harsh.

I would however agree that this should be in the MTU for i 7.3. It is significant enough impact that planning is required. Either turn it off or assure your clients are up to date with the required patches.

Perhaps Mr Rowe could assist in making that happen??

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.

On 6/29/2017 12:11 PM, Buck Calabro wrote:

On 6/29/2017 9:19 AM, DrFranken wrote:

Is IBM Aware of this: Absolutely. Are then working on better fixes: Yes.

To me phrases like 'betrayed' are a little over the top.

I value your opinion. Deeply, truly.
But that doesn't invalidate my feelings on the matter.

On the Friday before the upgrade to 7.3, file shares between Windows
clients and my IFS were boringly functional. No one thought twice about
them. I upgraded to 7.3 over the weekend, and on Monday, I was
surprised at just how many people were suddenly aware of file shares.

IBM didn't prepare me for this at all.

The only thing in the MTU relating to SMB2 is this: 'IBM i NetServer
Shared Printer Changes'. Not one word about file shares, broken Windows
SMB2 implementation, or the freakish behaviour that ensues after the
upgrade activates SMB2 by default.


Apparently, there are internal, foundational issues in IBM i which make
implementing the busted Microsoft SMB2 protocol problematic. Fair
enough - my own software isn't exactly 'feature complete' either.

But if IBM i isn't ready to handle several million Windows clients quite
yet, why in the name of Ada Lovelace deploy SMB2 as the default now?
Allow the fully compliant SMB2 _as an option_ for those companies who
have Apple, Linux and AIX clients, and write a nice tech note explaining
that Microsoft customers need to call Microsoft before they activate SMB2.


Documentation is hard. It's multi-lingual. It's expensive. I totally
get that. I do. But are Windows users connecting to NetServer shares
really that rare that there's no need to mention the Microsoft SMB2 file
share issues in the MTU? In the MTU paragraph mentioning printer share
issues with Microsoft clients?

If betrayed is over the top, how about blind-sided?