Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have been trying to connect a Linux box to a remote Samba share, with no success. The Samba share is a NAS, mapped to be accessible from the Internet, and to be used as a secondary backup box.

The layout has been decided by my client.

The Samba share works (as I have managed to connect to it from my Windows 7 computer), but almost none of my Linux boxes can connect to it.

Tried to connect to the Samba share with 3 Centos boxes and did not work; works with Windows or and with a Ubuntu box. I have also temporarily shut down the firewall on the Centos boxes, but nothing changed.

This is the kind of output I get:

smbclient -U Administrator \\xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx\hd_bkp timeout connecting to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:445 timeout connecting to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:139 Error connecting to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (Operation already in progress) Connection to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx failed (Error NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED

Troubleshooting:

  • I've already tried nmap -P0 against the IP. It does NOT show the ports 139 and 445 as open. The ports show as open when running nmap from the Ubuntu box.

  • The Centos boxes can connect to Samba shares - but they cannot connect to Samba shares in the Internet.

  • None of the Centos boxes seems to be able to mount samba shares via the Internet, but they can mount samba shares from computers in the same network (this might be the critical point?)

  • I've also tried tcpdump, but not sure if the results are meaningful. 192.168.1.150 is the ip of the machine trying to connect to the Samba share, shared at ip xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx


tcpdump -ln -vv host xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx | tee tcpdump.txt
tcpdump: listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
16:12:49.777047 IP (tos 0x0, ttl  64, id 42420, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 60) 192.168.1.150.60798 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.microsoft-ds: S, cksum 0x1b2e (correct), 2698738746:2698738746(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 5036430 0,nop,wscale 7>
16:12:52.777591 IP (tos 0x0, ttl  64, id 42421, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 60) 192.168.1.150.60798 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.microsoft-ds: S, cksum 0x0f76 (correct), 2698738746:2698738746(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 5039430 0,nop,wscale 7>
16:12:58.776620 IP (tos 0x0, ttl  64, id 42422, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 60) 192.168.1.150.60798 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.microsoft-ds: S, cksum 0xf805 (correct), 2698738746:2698738746(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 5045430 0,nop,wscale 7>
16:13:07.246806 IP (tos 0x0, ttl  64, id 31289, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 60) 192.168.1.150.56120 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.netbios-ssn: S, cksum 0xfd21 (correct), 2724620277:2724620277(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 5053900 0,nop,wscale 7>
16:13:10.246675 IP (tos 0x0, ttl  64, id 31290, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 60) 192.168.1.150.56120 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.netbios-ssn: S, cksum 0xf169 (correct), 2724620277:2724620277(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 5056900 0,nop,wscale 7>
16:13:16.246704 IP (tos 0x0, ttl  64, id 31291, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 60) 192.168.1.150.56120 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.netbios-ssn: S, cksum 0xd9f9 (correct), 2724620277:2724620277(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 5062900 0,nop,wscale 7>

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance,

Andres
share|improve this question
    
Tried the same procedure on a second Ubuntu box and both 139 and 445 are open, and on a 4th Centos box and they are closed. Looks like Windows and Ubuntu box can connect, Centos ones cannot. I have copied Ubuntu's /etc/samba/smb.conf in Centos but it hasn't been enough. Any further suggestions? –  Andres Mar 22 '11 at 16:39

2 Answers 2

You should try portscan your connection from outside the network and see if the port is actually open. If the port is open, then blocking isn't the issue.

Does you NAS have logs that you can look at to see if a connection attempt was made by your CentOS hosts?

What do you logs say on the CentOS hosts? Take a look to see if you are being denied based on a version issue with the SAMBA client, you may need to install a new client or update.

I possible can you setup your NAS to offer an NFS share? This would be a much better solution for your setup than using Samba.

share|improve this answer
    
Hi Mike, that's what I thought - but it is actually quite confusing. nmap from the Centos boxes seems to suggest that the ports are closed - but Windows clients and an Ubuntu box can connect from any external network - which would imply that the ports are actually open. I've done my scanning with nmap -P0 - should I try something different? –  Andres Mar 21 '11 at 16:53
    
That's odd. The port is either open or closed and shouldn't be OS dependent - can you telnet from the CentOS boxes to the Samba port? telnet host port –  Mike Mar 21 '11 at 17:21
    
When connecting to the share can you specify a port to connect on? You could try setting up wireshark to watch the connection traffic and make sure that the centos host is attempting to connect to the correct port –  Mike Mar 21 '11 at 17:25
    
Hi Mike, I've tried to verify whether the ports 139 and 445 are open or not - with odd results. netstat shows traffic trough port 445 when opening the samba share on a Windows box. nmap -P0 -p 139, 445 shows both 139 and 445 as filtered on Centos, while shows 445 as open in Windows. –  Andres Mar 21 '11 at 19:52
    
that is odd. do you have any outbound iptables filtering rules in centos? –  Mike Mar 21 '11 at 20:54

Some hosting companies block SMB ports inbound onto their networks (as Windows-based SMB is notoriously insecure). Does your host allow this (or is it your network?)

share|improve this answer
    
ports 139 and 445 on the router point to the NAS; Windows clients on a different subnet can connect to the Samba share(s) on the NAS. The problems seems to be with the Centos clients - but I cannot figure what. –  Andres Mar 21 '11 at 16:48

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.