Sonos woes yet again

hexadecagram

Dabbler
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
32
It seems that Sonos problems have resurfaced.

Enabling SMB1 and NTLMv1 was working for me for a while but recently it stopped. I'm currently at 11.2-U5 but if memory serves, it seems to have broken the moment I upgraded from either from 11.x or 9.x to 11.2. I used to have SMB1 enabled by manually entering it in auxiliary configuration but since the addition of the checkbox, I've been using that. I have verified by looking at /usr/local/etc/smb4.conf that the correct configuration is in there regardless ("server min protocol = NT1" and "ntlm auth = yes").

I found a recommendation to set the tunable freenas.services.smb.config.server.min_protocol to NT1, which I attempted but that affected nothing.

I have also tried setting server min protocol = CORE which also affected nothing, even if I likewise adjusted the aforementioned tunable.

I have updated the Music Library, no luck.

No matter what, Sonos still reports the following error:

The share \\SERVER\music does not exist.

Anyone else experiencing this yet again?
 

pschatz100

Guru
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
1,184
There is a lot of discussion on the Sonos site about this issue. It appears that Sonos has implemented a way to share via http: instead of using SMBv1. Maybe that could be an alternative? It does not appear that they expect to support newer versions of Samba anytime soon. There must be a technical reason for that.

I am new to Sonos, which is why this thread caught my attention. I use Plex, which works OK with Sonos.
 

hexadecagram

Dabbler
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
32
There is a lot of discussion on the Sonos site about this issue. It appears that Sonos has implemented a way to share via http: instead of using SMBv1. Maybe that could be an alternative? It does not appear that they expect to support newer versions of Samba anytime soon. There must be a technical reason for that.

I am new to Sonos, which is why this thread caught my attention. I use Plex, which works OK with Sonos.

Thanks for pointing this out. Would you mind sharing a few links?
 

pschatz100

Guru
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
1,184
I just searched for Sonos SMBv1 problems, and quite a few threads came up. Clearly, this is not a new issue with Sonos. Supposedly, in the newest version of their app, one can set up sharing via http:. I don't have any experience with it myself.

I have been using Plex for a very long time to host my media, and there are a number of options for Sonos and Plex to work together. I never tried anything else.
 

hexadecagram

Dabbler
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
32
IMO, SMB has always been a very poor file sharing protocol. With all the attempts of understanding I have thrown at it (going back over 2 decades), I am nevertheless kind of sad to see it go but it seems even Microsoft is tired of it. Still, it boggles the mind as to why Sonos is restricting access to SMBv1, especially when it was working just fine with SMBv2 for so long. If memory serves, I think the restriction surfaced shortly after SMBv3.1.1 was released, but it's still a mystery why SMBv1 was chosen.

As far as I can tell, I could use WebDAV in FreeNAS, but the authorization mechanism is such that it only supports 1 user for all WebDAV shares. Would be nice if it could be configured per share. It seems that's my only option for built-in HTTP server support.

I will have a look at Plex.
 

Constantin

Vampire Pig
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
1,828
Sonos for years claimed it was looking into alternatives to SMB1 NTLM v1, that the issue was on a "list", etc. But the reality is that NAS-based music simply has not been a priority at Sonos for over a decade now. The relevant engineering teams were allegedly fired. Instead, the company has focused almost exclusively on streaming. The latest shiny object management is chasing is voice-activated stuff once Echo, Homekit, Alexa, etc. came out.

My suggestion: Many gateways offer hosting a disk on a rudimentary NAS of sorts. For example, I use an Apple AirPort Extreme 6th gen here to hold my music collection on a 2TB 2.5" spinner that runs off USB bus power.
  • It's simple to implement and Apple APs are still getting firmware updates
  • I don't have to dumb down the FreeNAS server (and hence expose it to serious security flaws)
  • Sonos' is only able to access a copy of my data; the drive acts a bit like a canary in the coal mine.
Periodically sync stuff to the portable drive from your FreeNAS server and you're good to go. Don't have a cheap gateway / AP to do this with? Consider a rPi or like device. I purposely port-blocked and DNS-blackholed my Sonos gear here because I want to keep the firmware at 8.4, the last to support my well-functioning CR100 controller. FWIW, IheartRadio, podcasts, etc. still work. I'm also not a fan of my Sonos gear attempting to contact the mothership literally hundreds of times a day even though I have stats-sharing turned off. As far as I am concerned, Sonos is a lost cause.

When my Sonos equipment fails, I will switch to Bluesound because at least there I have control over the firmware.
 

hexadecagram

Dabbler
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
32
For example, I use an Apple AirPort Extreme 6th gen here to hold my music collection on a 2TB 2.5" spinner that runs off USB bus power.

A quick Google turns up this. I'm sure I am not alone in thinking that FreeNAS supporting this natively would be fantastic. If I were to set up a custom jail, would I find all of these components in the FreeBSD pkg system?

It also appears there are competing technologies. ¿Por qué no los tres?

A previous user suggested Plex. From what I gather it does support DLNA. But I don't care to have my music library shared with the mothership. I did find some alternatives such as Jellyfin and a few others that looked promising.

In any case, due to my network topology, I need to find some time to tear down my FreeNAS LAGG interface and get VLANs set up properly. Actually, I think I will tackle it right now....

Sonos is a lost cause.

I am starting to think this as well. In fact the only thing that is keeping me a user (apart from the fact that I have sunk a significant amount of coin into their products) is the fact that they promised to open their API to 3rd party developers. I have yet to see any movement in that direction, however. But I would imagine that our needs could be met if such a dev came in with Samba and didn't water it down. The only logical explanation for all of this is that orbital mind control lasers are involved.

When my Sonos equipment fails, I will switch to Bluesound because at least there I have control over the firmware.
I had a cursory look at their website. It seems their products could easily replace what I've got, though I do have Sonos-specific mounts.

What makes you say you have control over the firmware?

And what can you share about their system architecture, if anything?
 

Constantin

Vampire Pig
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
1,828
Because Sonos wouldn't update the SMB stack for years I don't trust them re: other security issues. It simply doesn't seem to be a priority over there. I'd rather incur the 1-2W cost of a "disposable" spinner hanging off a AP than expose my song collection to them, especially since every Sonos component tries to connect to the mothership hundreds of times per day (even though metrics have been turned off). The Plex workaround does offer one major benefit, i.e. the ability to host song collections with more than 50k files or whatever the Sonos native SMB limit is.

To me, the company has gone through three major transitions re: software development:
  • NAS-centric enjoyment of music (i.e. early years)
  • Streaming of music (until about 2015-16)
  • Voice-activated everything (present day)
Every time the company started chasing a new shiny object, anything related to the previous focus withered. Hence, no SMB2+ implementation despite users asking for it for years, Sonos getting a lot of flack in the press re: this issue, etc. I also contend that management was blindsided by the emergence of Echo, Alexa, Siri, etc. enabled smart speakers and is now scrambling to keep up. The big three (Google, Apple, Amazon) could afford to flood the market with cheap speakers, leverage the data center AI, muscling Sonos out of the niche it used to dominate.

Based on what I've seen come from the company, I suspect that Sonos management is setting the place up for a sale to one of the big three. Hence the latest trade-up / bricking program, whose biggest benefit is increasing the number of Sonos users who have voice-activated kit in their home. More voice-connected users = more value to one of the big three seeking market share. However, the user backlash seems to have chastened management somewhat and now they pledge to support "legacy" device alongside newer gear. This is a significant departure from the "one firmware for all" devices that Sonos used to strictly enforce.

As I understand it, a whole host of Sonos devices will be declared "legacy" (Zone player 80, 90, connect: AMP, CR200, etc.), brought to a certain firmware but no further and may even receive future security updates on occasion. However functional issues (such as new streaming services) will not be addressed for legacy devices. Basically, Sonos is adopting the Apple system of allowing older iPhones and other devices to continue to work alongside newer stuff, relying on functional obsolescence to force upgrades (elimination of 2G phone services, et. al).

Despite DNS-black-holing and port-blocking my Sonos gear for months re: Sonos.com and its sub-domains, I have had no issues with listening to live radio and podcasts. This is my workaround re: the firmware issue though I am one flash failure away from having to update the firmware site-wide and losing the CR100s in the process.

I'm also not trying to put Bluesound on a pedestal, BTW. Because they are a much smaller company, the software side doesn't seem to be as polished as Sonos - App reviewers in the iOS store complain about the controller being unstable. Unlike Sonos, there is no third-party controller like Sonophone (which has worked great for me, does not require me to update the zone player firmware like the official Sonos App does, etc.).

However, one can download the current Bluesound component firmware, store it on a stick / HDD / whatever and upload it into the Bluesound gear via the external USB port whenever one wants / needs to (updates via internet are also possible). As I understand it, setting up Bluesound gear is independent of the company being a going concern or not. Without a internet connection to the Sonos mothership, it is not possible to set up a Sonos system, add a component, or even perform a firmware update. Until recently, you also had no choice re: firmware - only the latest was allowed and no backsliding.

This is also how Sonos enforces the bricking process on its latest "recycle to upgrade" scheme - the user contacts the mothership, which then remotely bricks their component, followed by the component being blacklisted at Sonos. Thus, even if you were able to locally un-brick the component (say, by copying the flash via JTAG from one unit to another), you'd never be able to re-register the component at Sonos and hence the component is permanently disabled. At least this time the company gave its user base a better heads-up and made a minimum effort prevent unauthorized users from bricking components. There still is way too much opportunity for abuse, however.

The Sonos mothership can, and has, mass-bricked functional Sonos components via poorly-documented firmware "updates" in the past (8.5 vs. the CR100). While some users got notice in advance that firmware 8.5 would brick their CR100's, many did not (see the forums). Given that Sonos has zero authorization built into their update process (any user on the network can initiate a site-wide update), that up-to-date Sonos apps refuse to work with older firmwares, etc. led to users either hardening their installations (to prevent their gear from contacting Sonos or its sub-domains) or acquiesce to having their CR100's bricked. That simply stinks.

I will live with my Sonos gear until it peters out - but only because I have blocked it from contacting Sonos. My CR100's feature new batteries and simply soldier on. After that, we'll see... I may even roll my own with a Pi and a small Amp.
 
Last edited:
Top