Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Why in God's green earth would you deploy XP today? Or would you continue to operate Windows XP?
The system it runs has an $80,000 camera on it
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Does enabling just the client side make the Windows 10 system vulnerable?
This would mean that it is free to reach out to SMB 1 shares. If you never reach out, it has no effect.
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
What I am trying to figure out is if I have a special machine running XP and need to pull data from a share on it, can I enable SMB 1.0 client on a Windows 10 machine, connect a crossover cable and have the 10 machine pull data from the XP share safely?
If you are only on a Crossover cable, you can do anything safely as your network is not exposed.
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
If this is a horrible idea are there any suggestions to make this a secure setup other than replacing the XP machine.
An XP machine offline is safer than a Windows 10 box online. Annoying, not secure.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
What I am trying to figure out is if I have a special machine running XP and need to pull data from a share on it, can I enable SMB 1.0 client on a Windows 10 machine, connect a crossover cable and have the 10 machine pull data from the XP share safely?
If you are only on a Crossover cable, you can do anything safely as your network is not exposed.
The Windows 10 machine has dual nics. One connected to the network and the other via crossover to the XP.
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Why would linux make a difference in this situation? Wouldn't SMB1.0 be the same no matter the client?
Current, the flaws with SMB 1 are with the spec, not the implementation.
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
The system it runs has an $80,000 camera on it
Are you implying that you can't update Windows XP because the $80,000 camera is not supported and was designed to age out that quickly?
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@scottalanmiller said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
What I am trying to figure out is if I have a special machine running XP and need to pull data from a share on it, can I enable SMB 1.0 client on a Windows 10 machine, connect a crossover cable and have the 10 machine pull data from the XP share safely?
If you are only on a Crossover cable, you can do anything safely as your network is not exposed.
The Windows 10 machine has dual nics. One connected to the network and the other via crossover to the XP.
Then there are risks, but SMB 1 isn't it, since anything that compromised the system would compromised SMB 3 just as quickly in that scenario.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
If this is a horrible idea are there any suggestions to make this a secure setup other than replacing the XP machine.
Literally any modern linux desktop or server.
Why would linux make a difference in this situation? Wouldn't SMB1.0 be the same no matter the client?
No, because at least a Linux workstation would be up to date if it was hosting the SMB 1.0 share. Using XP as a server is also against the ToS and EULA, and is so out of date that even considering leaving it around is a major issue.
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Why in God's green earth would you deploy XP today? Or would you continue to operate Windows XP?
The system it runs has an $80,000 camera on it
Interested to know the model of the camera, but i think what you might want to do is Windows 2008 R2 with latest patches, i cant think of scenario that Windows 7/2008R2 wont run an XP program.
And the above has good security updates till 2018 and i think 2008 R2 is still supported ? right ?
But yeah ditch the XP man, it seems you got used to having it around.
-
An $80,000 camera would likely be a laser scanner for sheet metal accuracy.
I used to have one of these units that I had to maintain, but it didn't have internet access, the output was directly written to an external USB and the reports were pull from that and saved to the network.
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Why in God's green earth would you deploy XP today? Or would you continue to operate Windows XP?
The system it runs has an $80,000 camera on it
Also this seems insane that the customer has an $80,000 camera, but can't or won't purchase an updated system to run it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
If this is a horrible idea are there any suggestions to make this a secure setup other than replacing the XP machine.
Literally any modern linux desktop or server.
Why would linux make a difference in this situation? Wouldn't SMB1.0 be the same no matter the client?
No, because at least a Linux workstation would be up to date if it was hosting the SMB 1.0 share. Using XP as a server is also against the ToS and EULA, and is so out of date that even considering leaving it around is a major issue.
The camera defaults it's images to a folder on the local drive. That folder is shared. You cannot change the default location.
-
@Emad-R said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Interested to know the model of the camera, but i think what you might want to do is Windows 2008 R2 with latest patches, i cant think of scenario that Windows 7/2008R2 wont run an XP program.
Sadly, there are many.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Why in God's green earth would you deploy XP today? Or would you continue to operate Windows XP?
The system it runs has an $80,000 camera on it
Also this seems insane that the customer has an $80,000 camera, but can't or won't purchase an updated system to run it.
This sounds like scientific/educational equipment. Most likely that vendor either doesn't exist anymore or the system update is to just buy another 80,000$ camera.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Why in God's green earth would you deploy XP today? Or would you continue to operate Windows XP?
The system it runs has an $80,000 camera on it
Also this seems insane that the customer has an $80,000 camera, but can't or won't purchase an updated system to run it.
Medical equipment. That was the price of the current camera. The newer ones are even more ridiculous.
-
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
If this is a horrible idea are there any suggestions to make this a secure setup other than replacing the XP machine.
Literally any modern linux desktop or server.
Why would linux make a difference in this situation? Wouldn't SMB1.0 be the same no matter the client?
No, because at least a Linux workstation would be up to date if it was hosting the SMB 1.0 share. Using XP as a server is also against the ToS and EULA, and is so out of date that even considering leaving it around is a major issue.
The camera defaults it's images to a folder on the local drive. That folder is shared. You cannot change the default location.
Sure you can
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
Why in God's green earth would you deploy XP today? Or would you continue to operate Windows XP?
The system it runs has an $80,000 camera on it
Also this seems insane that the customer has an $80,000 camera, but can't or won't purchase an updated system to run it.
Sadly, there are many. hehe x2
I had to deal with clients that paid 100K for unnecessary server room safety and ridiculous hardware that we dont need, and when I told them to get support subscription-like from canonical they were like nah your smart we dont need that.
-
@Emad-R said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
when I told them to get support subscription-like from canonical they were like nah your smart we dont need that.
I've left jobs who've said that to me. "Oh you're too cheap to get proper support, well I guess you're F'd now - peace!"
-
@coliver said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:
This sounds like scientific/educational equipment. Most likely that vendor either doesn't exist anymore or the system update is to just buy another 80,000$ camera.
Current process is that they print all images and then scan them in. I was just looking to save some steps but not cause a security issue for them.
