News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by int_19h on Thursday July 21, 2016 @01:25AM (#12134924)
I'm curious whether anyone had ever tried implementing a pure userspace solution (without a kernel driver) by basically exposing the underlying FS as a CIFS share on some random local port. Obviously, that would be slower, but for many applications that doesn't matter much - while the ability to install and run without administrator privileges would be valuable.
Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by rasz_pl on Thursday July 21, 2016 @09:13AM (#12136593)
This is how CDRom worked under DOS(MSCDEX).

from wiki:

>The driver uses the Microsoft Networks interface in MS-DOS. This is the reason that at least version 3.1 of MS-DOS is required. The driver essentially looks like a network drive from the system perspective. It's implemented as a TSR program[3] and an extension to the redirector interface (CDEX).

Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by lukeh on Thursday July 21, 2016 @01:49AM (#12135014)
OpenAFS used to do this if I remember right. They moved to an IFS.
Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by ComodoHacker on Thursday July 21, 2016 @03:09AM (#12135260)
How do I connect to CIFS on non-default port?
Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by captainmuon on Thursday July 21, 2016 @03:59AM (#12135427)
The only way I found was to use (cygwin ssh) port forwarding to map that port to the standard one, kill the default network SMB process (which restarts), and hope my process wins the race. Then you could access the remote shares at \\127.0.0.1 .

I think I also managed to create a loopback device, put it into its own subnet, and map the port to that device, and then it was possible to do e.g. \\192.168.100.56, but it was a pain to set up.

The reason I needed this was, I wanted to run samba as non-root on a remote host (on a non-privileged port), and forwarded that with ssh though a firewall. This way I could access my files on the remote Linux server from my windows desktop. One problem is that windows does not tolerate hanging connections much, and a bad or lost connecting can freeze your program or require a reboot. I'm not sure how much is the kernels fault and how much you can code around this.

Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by ComodoHacker on Thursday July 21, 2016 @05:04AM (#12135637)
Dirty hacking as it is. In similar situations I just use SFTP.
Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by int_19h on Thursday July 21, 2016 @08:26PM (#12141000)
I've seen UNC paths with port number before, so I assumed that it's possible; but apparently those are for WebDAV.

Of course, this means that it should be doable with WebDAV instead of CIFS. Which would probably mean even worse perf, but still potentially acceptable...

Can WebDAV paths be used without mounting them to a drive letter first, though?

Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by saynsedit on Thursday July 21, 2016 @02:39AM (#12135167)
I've done this, it works.
Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by voltagex_ on Thursday July 21, 2016 @03:06AM (#12135247)
On Windows? I didn't think Windows would connect to SMB/CIFS on any other ports other than 139/445.

Can you share any other details?

Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by tiraniddo on Thursday July 21, 2016 @05:40AM (#12135767)
Not sure you can do it easily with SMB/CIFS (maybe some NAT tricks) but depending on the level of FS support you want it's pretty easy to do it with WebDav. You can mount a webdav share pointing to localhost on an arbitrary port (I believe it's of the work \\localhost@portno\DAVWWWRoot). From there I'm sure you could proxy out to any other FS implementation you liked. It also probably isn't great for large files etc due to the way WebDAV works of course :-)
Re:Windows File System Proxy – FUSE-Like Capability for Windows by saynsedit on Thursday July 21, 2016 @11:13AM (#12137381)
For this particular client we had Administrator access. SMB was used since we did not trust Dokan and did not want to pay for CBFS.