On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:14:35 -0700 Jeremy Allison <jra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 07:08:04PM -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: > > Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 05:59:41PM -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: > > >> The network traffic is not encrypted. > > >> > > >> The SMB protocol does not provide any mechanism for encrypting traffic > > >> between clients and servers. > > > > > > As shipped by Microsoft :-). The UNIX extensions to SMB allow > > > encrypted traffic between clients and servers and Samba has > > > supported this for a long time (smbclient -e will encrypt > > > traffic). > > > > 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. > > 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 :-). > > > 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.. :-). > Sorry, just haven't heard great hue and cry for this feature (other than from you, of course :). My next task for cifs is to make it do parallel reads, but I haven't had time to start on that yet. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- 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
