I am trying to print to a shared Vista printer over a VPN using Sonicwall
Global VPN client and each attempt results in the following error:
session setup failed: NT_STATUS_OK
If I use the smbclient -L option, I get following:
# smbclient -L \\ralph-pc
Password:
Anonymous login successful
Domain=[LTL] OS=[Windows Vista (TM) Business 6000] Server=[Windows
Vista (TM) Business 6.0]
Sharename Type Comment
--------- ---- -------
Error returning browse list: NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED
Anonymous login successful
Domain=[LTL] OS=[Windows Vista (TM) Business 6000]
Server=[Windows Vista (TM) Business 6.0]
Server Comment
--------- -------
RALPH-PC
Workgroup Master
--------- -------
LTL
Are you trying to use anonymous login? Set up a user account and
password
and try "smbclient -L \\ralph-pc -Uusername".
Mike
"scoace" <mi...@tkg.ca> wrote in message
news:1190226338.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Doesn't Vista by default like Windows 2003 not support the NTMLv2
security that Samba's using? I don't know if it's just a registry
hack to turn it on if it's something programmatic.
--RLR
"ThreeStar" <s...@3starsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:1190307773.3...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
There is more than one problem, though they are related or maybe they are
really the same root cause but it shows up a couple different ways that
don't look related from the outside.
I got a new laptop with vista recently and tried to use the vista backup
util to do a backup to a samba share on an opensuse box. There were some new
authentication issues at first which I got past in a few minutes and I had
vista able to create dirs and files on the share in explorer no problem. But
the backup util tickles something that most other things don't happen to
tickle and so the backup kept failing. That turned out to be fixed by a more
recent version of samba.
Very recent versions of samba can handle Vista by default, older ones can
have a patch applied and recompiled, (though if you can recompile, might as
well just compile the latest version instead), still older versions (and all
other smb servers like facetwin and visionfs) can work but require a setting
change in the vista machine. I think it's not even necessary to use regedit
do change the setting.
Just google samba vista or samba vista backup and read all about it.
Although, discard the beginnings of most web forum threads where it's
discussed and "answered", a lot of the early answers are wrong, as are a lot
of the problem reports where the person doesn't actually know what problem
he has and describes it in terms of what he thinks is going on instead of
strictly in terms of what he did and saw. I guess I could have retraced my
steps when I wanted to use windows backup to write a backup of a new laptop
to a samba share, and provided the end result directly by now instead of
writing this paragraph. Sorry. :)
One nice thing about Linux, when hit this issue, it only took me a few
minutes to google up that samba version x.y.z (days or weeks old) and later
addresses the issue, and then find and install the nice effortless (days or
weeks old) rpm for my distribution and cpu type, and proceed to do the
backup. The total interruption was only a few minutes.
Brian K. White br...@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!
As per my other post, be aware that there is an issue that only some things
tickle.
With samba 3.0.23 I had vista working in most apparent respects, yet the
vista backup util failed.
It _looked_ like a weird permissions problem where the backup util would
create a temp file and then claim to be unable to modify it. Even though I
had no such permissions problems in explorer.
Turns out to be a known problem that is fixed by just getting an even more
recent version of samba. (3.0.24 or later)
Googling "samba vista" gets you all the stuff about ntlmv2 and the fact that
you need samba 3.0.22 or later.
Googling "samba vista backup" shows that that is not the end of the story
and gets you this other thing that involves acl's and the fact that you need
samba 3.0.24 or later.
Note that the most recent sco build, 3.0.20a, is too old to include even the
partial fix.
So if it were me I'd build the latest 3.0.26 and try that before anything
else.
I've always installed samba as a SCO Unixware package. I downloaded
the latest version, but am unsure how to proceed from here. Can
anyone provide insight to this.