[xboxoneuser27]

I had Kodi working somewhat fine on my Xbox One, but I was having trouble reading from a USB HDD connected via USB 3.0 (some files would not play, some folders showed empty when they were not, both in Kodi & VLC), so I wanted to try reading the files over a network. I could not see any SMB options, so I deleted Kodi, restarted the Xbox, and re-installed Kodi.

I can see/read the folders and files fine in the VLC app (being shared from a machine running Windows 7). I expected to see this option:



However when I go to add the folders/files to the library in Kodi, there is no "Windows Network (SMB)" option, nor is the SMB protocol listed in "Add network location..." the available protocols listed are:

Web server directory (HTTPS)
Network File System (NFS)
RSS Feed (HTTPS)
RSS Feed (HTTP)
UPnp server
FTPS server
FTP server
WebDAV server (HTTP)
WebDAV server (HTTPS)

Also, under Settings>Services there is no mention of SMB Client, all that shows in there is:

General
Control
UPnp / DLNA
Airplay
Weather

I tried manually entering the share using multiple formats, names, and the IP address (smb://COMPUTERNAME/SHARE/, smb://192.168.1.27/Movies/, etc). Can't get anything to work in Kodi.

I know there is an option to setup an NFS server in Windows 7, but I really just wanted to use the Windows Network / SMB protocol. Is this not possible on the Xbox One Kodi app?

Is there some add-on I have to install to enable SMB support?

Also, I tried using the search function on this site, but I can't search for SMB alone because it needs 4 characters. I have also done extensive searching using two different search engines. Thanks in advance for any help!

[xboxoneuser27]

I think I found it, why this is normally not enabled is beyond me!

https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid...pid2733340

See Add-on Browser -> My add-ons -> Virtual filesystems

[Hamsterkill]

I think I found it, why this is normally not enabled is beyond me!

It was considered experimental when it was first added to the UWP app due to the trickiness of getting the library to work within UWP.

FWIW, VLC is still restricted to using the insecure SMBv1 on Xbox for the moment. I think their next release will support SMBv2/3. Kodi specifically excludes support for SMBv1 and only supports SMBv2/3.

[charlys]

I registered for an account just to say thank you xboxoneruser27

This is the answer I was looking for.

I think I found it, why this is normally not enabled is beyond me!

https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid...pid2733340

See Add-on Browser -> My add-ons -> Virtual filesystems

[saeedesmaili]

I think I found it, why this is normally not enabled is beyond me!

https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid...pid2733340

See Add-on Browser -> My add-ons -> Virtual filesystems

I can't see "Virtual filesystems" in the My Addons section. What can I do to enable smb?

[aasimid]

I think I found it, why this is normally not enabled is beyond me!

https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid...pid2733340

See Add-on Browser -> My add-ons -> Virtual filesystems

I can't see "Virtual filesystems" in the My Addons section. What can I do to enable smb?

Go to add-ons
My add-ons
All
Select SMB support (libsmb2)
Enable

[gagnehj]

Understanding that SMBv1 has documented vulnerabilities ...

my NAS devices do not support SMBv2/3; my network is sufficiently protected/isolated that the SMBv1 vulnerabilities aren't a concern for me.  Additionally, media files I keep on the NAS are expendable as I work off a "master" set elsewhere and update accordingly.  As I've already invested significant dollars over the years, I'm just not ready to throw these functional NAS devices away to purchase new ones with SMBv2/3 support - yes, being frugal.

... it would have been helpful to have SMBv1 support provided as well.

[jools5000]

Understanding that SMBv1 has documented vulnerabilities ...

my NAS devices do not support SMBv2/3; my network is sufficiently protected/isolated that the SMBv1 vulnerabilities aren't a concern for me.  Additionally, media files I keep on the NAS are expendable as I work off a "master" set elsewhere and update accordingly.  As I've already invested significant dollars over the years, I'm just not ready to throw these functional NAS devices away to purchase new ones with SMBv2/3 support - yes, being frugal.

... it would have been helpful to have SMBv1 support provided as well.

SMB1 is broken by design
Its easy to argue to leave a feature in, hey why break it for me.  Forgetting that others still have to develop and test the software, if something is supported then the end user expects it to work and demands it be fixed.

The developers then have to run a vunerable system, for something that has been actively advised against for 5 years now and was superseded 13 years ago (when SMB 2.0 was released with Windows Vista). And in the end who wants to develop such old and insecure software for a small number of people who want to be 'frugal'?

This is the same argument made by those running Windows 7 or other old systems, don't realise that the world is moving on.  If you still need SMB 1 then Windows client OS still have full support if you wish to enable it.

[gagnehj]

SMB1 is broken by design
Its easy to argue to leave a feature in, hey why break it for me.  Forgetting that others still have to develop and test the software, if something is supported then the end user expects it to work and demands it be fixed.

If the code is already implemented and functional, it's typically not difficult to leave it there; specially considering it functions as an add-on. Users can choose to enable the add-on or not. I've written enough code in my time that supports backwards compatibility to attest to it.
 

The developers then have to run a vulnerable system, for something that has been actively advised against for 5 years now and was superseded 13 years ago (when SMB 2.0 was released with Windows Vista). And in the end who wants to develop such old and insecure software for a small number of people who want to be 'frugal'?

There are many layers to a vulnerability; firmware, assembly language, 1st/2nd/3rd gen programming languages, libraries, network protocols, applications, and macro/scriptlet code. Essentially, vulnerabilities are a day-to-day occurrence. I suppose we all have a different take on "small number of people" and what constitutes "frugality".
 

This is the same argument made by those running Windows 7 or other old systems, don't realise that the world is moving on.  If you still need SMB 1 then Windows client OS still have full support if you wish to enable it.

Given the origins of most applications, one shouldn't assume that the "latest-and-greatest" operating systems are the best thing around. Many factors come into play regarding new systems: some are driven by revenue, others driven by technological advancement in communications, and some in response to younger generational habits such as reading, visual interpretations, and fundamentals of concepts.


As per the subject line of this thread however, the conversation stems around the XBOX ONE platform. I'm certain I'm not the only KODI enthusiast who at the end of the day, is simply looking to consume their media as opposed to tinkering under the hood.

[jjd-uk]

Windows Kodi installs normally use the native smb functions in the OS, however the problem with Xbox is that Microsoft doesn't include any smb functions in the OS. This meant we had to use a third party library to give UWP versions of Kodi smb client abilities and the library does not implement smb1.

[gagnehj]

Windows Kodi installs normally use the native smb functions in the OS, however the problem with Xbox is that Microsoft doesn't include any smb functions in the OS. This meant we had to use a third party library to give UWP versions of Kodi smb client abilities and the library does not implement smb1.

Appreciate the explanation as to the implementation and the limitation it introduced; perhaps in the future, a supplemental update of the UWP SMB client could offer options for SMBv1 support.  In any case, it introduced some additional hoops to go though on my end but nothing that couldn't be handled. 



In my particular case, I moved one of my NAS devices (DNS-323) over to the ALT-F firmware which provided SMBv2/3 support.  The SMBv2/3 protocol appears to have dropped the NETBIOS name support.  I retired my infrastructure servers at home quite some time ago, which means I'm relying on my router to perform DNS, WINS, DHCP resolution and resolves from IP-to-Name is "touch-and-go"; again not an issue as connecting to the device via IPv4 is possible.

I've configured authentication to be "Guest-no-Password" and the media content on shared folder is sacrificial - i.e. one-way to NAS, archived/managed elsewhere.  As SMB is typically a local-net protocol and in my case, isolated to an IoT LAN, I'm not concerned about vulnerabilities in the SMBv1/2/3 protocol stack.

The downside with IP-based resolution over DNS (friendly name) resolves is that it eliminates the ability to quickly cut-over to another device - temporarily or permanently - without initiating a new library scan.

Cheers and thanks!

[jjd-uk]

Something else to consider for older devices that might not support SMB2/3 is to try NFS.