Always private
DuckDuckGo never tracks your searches.
Learn More
You can hide this reminder in Search Settings
All regions
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium (fr)
Belgium (nl)
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada (en)
Canada (fr)
Catalonia
Chile
China
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India (en)
Indonesia (en)
Ireland
Israel (en)
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia (en)
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan (en)
Peru
Philippines (en)
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain (ca)
Spain (es)
Sweden
Switzerland (de)
Switzerland (fr)
Taiwan
Thailand (en)
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
US (English)
US (Spanish)
Vietnam (en)
Safe search: moderate
Strict
Moderate
Off
Any time
Any time
Past day
Past week
Past month
Past year
  1. superuser.com

    Windows 10 still allows to enable SMB1 through checkbox "SMB 1.0/CIFS client" in "Turn Windows features on or off" in Control Panel. Is there any real danger for Windows 10 client by doing so?
  2. techcommunity.microsoft.com

    First published on TECHNET on Sep 16, 2016 Hi folks, Ned here again and today's topic is short and sweet: Stop using SMB1. Stop using SMB1 . STOP USING SMB1! In September of 2016, MS16-114 , a security update that prevents denial of service and remote code execution. If you need this security patch, you already have a much bigger problem: you are still running SMB1. The original SMB1 ...
  3. The real risk is that the SMBv1 vulnerability that was identified in 2017 (know as "EternalBlue") allows malware to propagate to all machines on a LAN very quickly, completely ignoring account-based security settings. This means that a single victim of an e-mail phising attack could become infected and then infect all 10,000 PCs on a corporate network within a few minutes, if SMB v1 is enabled ...
  4. tenforums.com

    Hi folks @ martik777 this whole thing - particularly on HOME Networks worrying about the security issues of using SMBV1 is totally overblown as are these days most security issues on Home machines (I exclude corporate, office, commercial web servers, public Forums, cloud servers, E-commerce sites such as Banking , shopping and whatever) from this as they DO have to worry extra about security ...
  5. community.spiceworks.com

    SMB1 is certainly fraught with security issues and should be discouraged. SMB2 is still fine and if disabled may cause some scanners to stop scan to folder and other options (and other devices might stop working as well as most have only just stopped using SMB1).
  6. securityboulevard.com

    Notably, SMB1 was used as an attack channel for both the WannaCry and NotPetya mass ransomware attacks in 2017. SMBv1 is so insecure that most security experts now recommend that administrators disable it entirely via a group policy update.
  7. The problem with enabling SMB1 is that it is extremely insecure. I would never recommend a business attempt to have smb1 enabled on any device inside their Network, no matter how good they think their precautions are.
  8. I'm researching security risks associated with SMBv1, in order to convince people that consider it "not that big of a deal". The probem is - I haven't found any argument against SMBv1 that would allow me to end the conversation immediately. I really must have overlooked something, maybe you can help me out?
  9. answers.microsoft.com

    Microsoft has determined that "SMB 1.0/CIFS Client" has a security issue and has disabled it. Without this feature my home network becomes inoperable. I have attempted to find a way for a home network to operate with shared printers, etc., but have had no luck as yet. There must be thousands of home networks affected, has anyone come up with an work around?
  10. Can’t find what you’re looking for?

    Help us improve DuckDuckGo searches with your feedback

  1. If the old device server is not accessible from the internet and is not used for internet surfing, it's as secure as the rest of your local network.

    In order for it to be infected, another device from the LAN must be infected first, then propagate the infection. I think that at this point the whole question of SMBv1 vulnerability becomes somewhat mute.

    SMBv1 vulnerability is dangerous for larger networks. A modest home LAN should avoid SMBv1, but an old device disconnected from the internet cannot be used as an entry-point by an attacker.

    For more information, see :

    • Microsoft's advisory Stop using SMB1
    • What’s the Problem with SMB 1, and Should You Worry About SMB 2 and 3?

    --harrymc

    Was this helpful?
Custom date rangeX