[REQUEST] Trouble mapping old D-Link NAS

[Appletax]

Client purchased a Windows 11 desktop from me to replace their old Windows 10 desktop. His D-Link DNS-323 NAS will not work with the newer PC. It is connected to the network via Ethernet. It gives errors anytime an attempt is made to map the drive. There's no issues accessing the internal web based interface. I backed up the data, nuked and paved the drive (RAID 1, again), and the issue persists. Tried changing the compatibility for the D-Link Easy Search Utility. Tried mapping using the GUI and command line, using both the name of the NAS and it's IP address. Good SMART on both WD Green 1.5TB drives.

Here is the path I used to try to map using the GUI: Net Use Y : \\dlink-9FF83B\Volume_1

(Tried with a space and with no space between "Y" and ":")

Pic of all three different methods having failed:

 

[Porthos]

NAS is probably only using SMB1. I think it is disabled by default in 11.

Enable SMB 1.0/CIFS File Sharing Support in Windows 11

This latest article provides detailed steps on How to Enable SMB 1.0/CIFS File Sharing Support in Windows 11 using simple steps.

winsides.com

 

[Appletax]

NAS is probably only using SMB1. I think it is disabled by default in 11.

Enable SMB 1.0/CIFS File Sharing Support in Windows 11

This latest article provides detailed steps on How to Enable SMB 1.0/CIFS File Sharing Support in Windows 11 using simple steps.

winsides.com

Hooray, you solved the problem! Thank you!

I have never worked with NASes before, so I am totally ignorant on the subject. I see that Microsoft recommends ditching SMB1 for newer versions. I suspect there's no way to update this ancient NAS to a newer version, so it's either stick with insecure SMB1 or purchase a new NAS. This NAS is used mainly for storing movies and photos on a local network only, so the security probably isn't all that important.

 

[timeshifter]

Solution: enable SMB 1.0 support in Windows 11 as it disables it.

28 minutes later, no need to participate or learn from others who helped out.

Sigh

 

[Appletax]

28 minutes later, no need to participate or learn from others who helped out.

Sigh

Ugh. You don't like it, but others in the past have chimed in that they liked that I put the solution at the top so people wouldn't have to deal with trying to find the solution.

What is the proper protocol? What is expected from me?

Perhaps the best thing to do is to wait a few days before adding the solution. Perhaps a week would be good. I deleted the solution and will re-add it later.

What to do?

 

[Appletax]

According to this article, if there aren't newer SMB options in the NAS, it's better to switch from SMBv1.0 to the NFS protocol. I did not find any protocol options in the D-Link NAS web-based interface, so SMBv1.0 is the only option in this case. Oh well, as long as it works, I guess. The article states that SMBv1.0 support may eventually be removed entirely from Windows 11.

 

[timeshifter]

so SMBv1.0 is the only option in this case. Oh well, as long as it works, I guess.

There's a reason SMB 1.0 is disabled. It's a high risk protocol. I suggest you Google it a bit before proceeding.

 

[timeshifter]

The primary danger of SMB 1.0 is its extreme vulnerability to cyberattacks due to its outdated security protocols, which lack encryption and proper authentication, making it a prime target for malware like ransomware (particularly notorious examples being WannaCry and NotPetya) to exploit and gain unauthorized access to systems, potentially causing data breaches and disruption to operations; essentially, using SMB 1.0 is considered highly insecure and should be disabled whenever possible.

Key points about the dangers of SMB 1.0:

• No encryption:
  SMB 1.0 transmits data without encryption, allowing attackers to easily intercept sensitive information.
  
  
• Exploitable vulnerabilities:
  Due to its old design, SMB 1.0 has numerous known vulnerabilities that attackers can leverage to gain access to systems.
  
  
• Widely targeted by malware:
  Ransomware like WannaCry has heavily exploited SMB 1.0 vulnerabilities to spread rapidly across networks.
  
  
• Man-in-the-middle attacks:
  Attackers can easily intercept SMB 1.0 communication between devices due to its weak authentication mechanisms.
  
  
• Lateral movement:
  Once compromised through SMB 1.0, attackers can easily move laterally within a network to access other systems.
  

Recommendation:

• Disable SMB 1.0:
  Microsoft strongly recommends disabling SMB 1.0 on all systems due to its security risks.
• Upgrade to newer SMB versions:
  If possible, utilize newer versions of SMB (like SMB 2 or SMB 3) which offer enhanced security features.

 

[britechguy]

There's a reason SMB 1.0 is disabled. It's a high risk protocol. I suggest you Google it a bit before proceeding.

Agreed, but I had an instance (that client who, when they were brand new to me, was still storing all their data on Windows Server 2003). I had no option but to enable SMB 1.0 until I managed to get them on to M365 and everything into SharePoint in the cloud.

If you have a client that is simply not willing to replace their NAS and that's the only protocol it works with, then if you've given them fair warning about the risks, they are the ones who are making the choice to take them on, at least for some period of time.

I'd hope that any business client, even a micro-business client, would be sensitive to issues of security and only use this as a very short term stopgap before upgrading their storage. Home users, well, who knows.

 

[britechguy]

they liked that I put the solution at the top so people wouldn't have to deal with trying to find the solution.

BTW, I find nothing wrong with this, per se. I would always include a direct mention of whoever it was that gave you the solution as well as a link to the post in the topic itself that contains it rather than a direct link to the solution offered that worked. It achieves the end you seek, largely anyway, while giving credit where credit is due. If someone can't click through on the link to the message that contains the solution you used that someone else gave, well . . .

 

[HCHTech]

Agreed, but I had an instance (that client who, when they were brand new to me, was still storing all their data on Windows Server 2003). I had no option but to enable SMB 1.0 until I managed to get them on to M365 and everything into SharePoint in the cloud.

Yes, we have had similar cases - last one I remember was a ancient copier they used for scanning and it wouldn't work without SMB1. The did eventually replace it with a current unit, but you can bet there was a note in the file to disable SMB1 as soon as it was possible.

 

[britechguy]

The did eventually replace it with a current unit, but you can bet there was a note in the file to disable SMB1 as soon as it was possible.

This is the real world. This is the world that most of us live in, whether we like it or not.

All we can do is tell those where we have to do this sort of enablement that it is a very bad idea and a horrific security risk, but it's a business decision as to whether they're willing to accept it or not.

Not everyone can afford to do every upgrade when I'd prefer they could, and even if they can, any business has competing priorities. If they've been chugging along with technology that's used SMB1 for heaven knows how many years without incident, no matter what I say, they're not going to believe doom in imminent (and, truthfully, it probably isn't for most micro-businesses - the juice has gotta be worth the squeeze).

 

[HCHTech]

Not everyone can afford to do every upgrade when I'd prefer they could

This is the crux of the matter - either can't afford, or doing so would disrupt their finances enough to avoid. My calendar is littered with reminders in the future for "Call Smith Manufacturing to re-pitch Business Premium, or EDR, or new printers". It's a fact of life in the SMB market.

 

[Metanis]

These episodes are learning experiences. My first thought was to the age of the old spinners in that NAS. And by "touching" it the customer will now hold the OP responsible if one coincidentally decides this is a good time to go belly up. No good deed goes unpunished!

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Haven't run across units this old in quite a while...(units that weren't working with SMB 2/3)....but a few years ago when it was more common to run across this SMB issue, simply doing firmware updates on the NAS or the MFP...would introduce support for SMB 2/3. Of course...fast forward to now...and really old devices may never have had firmware developed to update that feature.

 

[HCHTech]

And by "touching" it the customer will now hold the OP responsible if one coincidentally decides this is a good time to go belly up.

"Ever since you were here....." - The phone call every tech hates the most!

 

[Larry Sabo]

"Ever since you were here....." - The phone call every tech hates the most!

That and "It was working fine when I dropped it off."

 

[Diggs]

This discussion reminded me that I have an old Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ sitting on the shelf. Been trying to figure out a good use for it but never got there. The SMB1 discussion also reminds me why it was retired (besides being so sloooowww....)