Forum Moderators: bakedjake
Is authentication required for connections? Have you tried turning this off in smb.conf to see if it makes any difference? ("Public = yes", in which case "Read only = yes", and having only a dummy share configured might be a good idea from a security PoV)
Have you looked in the Samba log files to see if it shows anything? You can turn up the logging in smb.conf using the "log level = X" entry, where X goes from 0 to 10.
Is there a firewall of any kind on the box running Samba? Are you using hosts.allow and/or hosts.deny?
Did you compile Samba yourself, or was a prebuilt version supplied with the *nix distribution?
If you're on a broadband connection, it's possible that your ISP may be blocking certain ports (137-139 and 445 are the ones to check).
Finally, have you tried putting a Windows box (XP or Server) in place of the Samba server and seeing if you can connect to that?
I am using the Samba that came with the distribution, I didn't compile it myself.
How can I check to see if those port are blocked? If they are, how can I change what ports are used?
How can I check to see if those port are blocked?
Make sure you Samba server is up and running, then request a full port scan from somewhere like GRC's Shields Up [grc.com]
If they are, how can I change what ports are used?
I could be wrong, but I don't think you can change this easily, since a remote Windows client has no means to specify the port when it is connecting. The client just does "net use \\a.b.c.d\share", there's no "net use \\a.b.c.d:<port>\share" syntax that I'm aware of.
If you need remote access to a Samba or Windows share, I think you should be looking at a VPN rather than exposing Samba/Windows shares directly to the internet. The ports in question (139 and 445) are very frequently probed/attacked - see DShield [dshield.org] for more info.
hope that saves you some trouble. You may want to look into other alternatives, maybe even something like tunnelling netbios through ssh? ( [lists.samba.org...] )