Re: [tlug] Ubuntu server, Windows 7 client, and the firewall between them

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Dave M G writes:

 > Not that I am going to discount any possibility, but if the problem was
 > with Samba, then wouldn't I never be able to connect?

Most likely, yes.  But .... :-)  I don't know the details of Samba,
but consider FTP.  The original "active" design of FTP requires two
ports to be open, 20 for data and 21 for control (logging in and
commands).  Later "passive" FTP, which only needs port 21, was
designed.  It's possible to configure many server programs so that
only one of the two actually works.

 > I don't know if these messages indicate a problem:
 > 
 > dave@example.com:/var/log/samba$ more log.smbd
 > [2011/02/14 18:38:36.507368,  0] smbd/server.c:500(smbd_open_one_socket)
 >   smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use

Again, I'm not an expert, but this looks like a symptom of
misconfiguration to me.  Do post your samba conf file (after removing
any routable addresses and passwords etc!)

 > dave@example.com:/var/log/samba$ more log.nmbd
 > [2011/02/15 00:44:45.151230,  0]
 > nmbd/nmbd_incomingrequests.c:117(process_name_release_request)
 >   process_name_release_request: Attempt to release name HOMEGROUP<1d>
 > from IP 192.168.0.6 on subnet 192.168.0.2 being rejected as it is one of
 > our names.

That suggests to me that the Windows box releases the workgroup name
when it gives up, and the Samba server simply ignores that.  Does the
timestamp correspond to a "firewall enabled" time period or a
"firewall disabled" period?