Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) wrote:
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?
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?
it was explicitly _only_ smb-1.0, right?
Linus
Linus
Linus
[...]
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?
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?
it was explicitly _only_ smb-1.0, right?
Linus
Linus
Linus