linux-kernel - Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:45:42 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "L. A. Walsh" <linux-cifs@...nx.org>
Cc:     Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
        Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, L. A. Walsh <linux-cifs@...nx.org> wrote:
>    Why be incompatible with the majority of Windows installations?
> I.e.  If you really want to up security from 1.0 (not adverse to that),
> then why not go to 2.1 as used by Win7?  Win7 is still in support
> from MS -- and they haven't indicated a need to upgrade to 3.x for
> security reasons.  3.x may have new security features, no argument, but
> that doesn't mean 2.1, is insecure.

I'm certainly ok with changing the default to 2.1 if that helps people.

Is that actually likely to help the people who now see problems with
the existing 3.0 default?

I don't know the exact security issue details with cifs, but I _think_
it was explicitly _only_ smb-1.0, right?

                   Linus