On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Christopher R. Hertel <crh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeremy Allison wrote: > : >>> Right, but the question particularly listed WinXP as one of the >>> participating clients. Windows clients don't support the Unix extensions, >>> so they don't support encrypted SMB and that kinda ruins the whole thing, >>> eh? [sad face] >> >> Yes I realize that. But that's not what you said. You said: >> "The SMB protocol does not provide any mechanism for encrypting traffic >> between clients and servers." - but that's not generically true, >> only between *Microsoft* clients and servers. > > Well... technically the SMB protocol (as it exists today) is defined by the > Microsoft specifications, and they don't include any support for encryption. > > There is, unfortunately, no "official" specification of the Unix extensions > for SMB (only an old draft that doesn't include encryption, IIRC). Also, as > their name suggests, they're extensions to the protocol which means that > they're not part of the protocol itself. > >> You made it sound like that was definitive, and you are the >> acknowledged authority on CIFS/SMB, so I couldn't let that >> stand. People link to your posts here :-). > > Absolutely right to set the record straight. I should have added the caveat > that the Unix extensions include support for encryption. > >>> Please allow me to join the choir on that. (I'll sit at the back and not >>> get in anyone's way.) [winky face] >> >> Maybe if we all wish REALLY HARD, Steve and Jeff will hear >> us.. :-). > > Don't forget to click your heels together and burn the tana leaves when the > moon is full over Vermont. ;) I haven't forgotten ... just queued up behind reviewing ~10 other patches. -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
