Recommended Posts

I have a local network setup using a standard 192.168.1.x range. there's no domain involved. there is no hardware firewall involved - only an unmanaged switch.

there are 4 machines on this subnet - Win7, Synology NAS, Server 2008 R2, Server 2003

i have 2 shared folders on the NAS which can be accessed easily by the Win7 and Server 2003 machines, but not by the R2 machine. fwiw, the R2 machine can access shares on both the Win7 and 2003 machines, just not the NAS.

When i try to map a network drive (a shared folder on the NAS) through Windows Explorer on the R2 box, i type in the appropriate creds, and about 10 seconds later, the credentials box pops up again (over and over.) If i try to use cmd to map the drive, i get "System error 58 has occurred. The specified server cannot perform the requested operation." Also, Synology has a product called the Synology Assistant. Within this program, i can [try to] map a drive using their wizard. This results in the same Error 58. I've contacted Synology support, and they were unable to rectify the issue.

Again, the win7 and 2003 boxes can access the shared folders on the NAS. The 2008 R2 box cannot.

After searching the internet for a fix, nothing has worked for me. I've tried uninstalling MSE, numerous Group Policy settings, numerous registry tweaks. i've also disabled the windows firewall and tried various tweaks to the network adapter's properties. nothing has worked.

I'm not sure where else to go w/ this.

no problems there typing in the computername\userid and password? if that is the case just use that to auth with.

i cant use the method you described. the NAS has no idea about the server's local users - only the users assigned in the NAS itself. (plus, i've tried that already) :p

you fail to understand what I am talking about....let me try to explain better...

device type : network name

server : server1

nas : storage

On the server you have no user passwords a user called owner and on the nas you have a user called user1 and a password of password.

when on server 1 and logged on with the user called owner and you want to access a share on the nas you open a run prompt and type in the following

\\storage\share1

now it prompts you for a username and password you type in:

storage\user1

password

--------------------

You can see in this example I am not using the user on the server for any type of authentication.

I have no clue what you have named your nas box so you will need to go into the network properties of your nas box to find out what it is called if you didn't rename it.

and what you described does not work. i continually get prompted to enter my credentials for the NAS. again, the NAS logs that the authentication was successful; however, windows just constantly re-prompts for the creds. if i do the same thing you mentioned in CMD, using "net use" i get the Error 58.

this same thing does NOT happen on the win7 or 2003 machines.

Thanks sc302. i've already tried that, but it didnt help either :s i had it set to ?Send LM & NTLM responses - use NTLMv2..." and it didnt work. i switched to ?Send LM & NTLM responses? and that didnt work either.

server 2008 isn't liking something, and there isn't much we can do further at this level. perhaps getting a network sniff and seeing what is transpiring on the network layer can lead to a more definitive cause if you are infact authing to the nas box and are getting logs stating that you have been granted access but continue to get access denied.

if it is group policy you can see what gp changes have been made by running rsop.msc at a run prompt you will be able to drill down through anything that has a policy change. if nothing is listed there are no policy changes (local or through a dc).

And what account are you running with on the 2k8 box? I do not believe I have ever seen that error before. But sounds more like the account your using does not have the ability to map

When you keep getting prompted -- are you trying to map it, or just browse it? Sounds like mapping to me

"When i try to map a network drive"

Vs trying to map -- just access it

run, \\nasname -- put in your creds, do you get access now?

if it is group policy you can see what gp changes have been made by running rsop.msc at a run prompt you will be able to drill down through anything that has a policy change. if nothing is listed there are no policy changes (local or through a dc).

let me look into that this morning. thanks!

And what account are you running with on the 2k8 box? I do not believe I have ever seen that error before. But sounds more like the account your using does not have the ability to map

When you keep getting prompted -- are you trying to map it, or just browse it? Sounds like mapping to me

"When i try to map a network drive"

Vs trying to map -- just access it

run, \\nasname -- put in your creds, do you get access now?

I've tried 3 different windows user logins - all of them in the local Admin group.

i get constantly prompted for my creds whether i try to browse (start, run) or map the drive in Explorer.

So when i try to map a drive in CMD, i get the Error Code 58 message. This same error code occurs in the Synology Assistant.

post-34502-0-45056500-1334580863.jpg

post-34502-0-32521400-1334580858.jpg

Again, you do not use windows logins....you will never auth with windows logins. You might as well try logging in with the user name of jesus and the password I am god, it will yield the same results.

You need to login with a user that was created on the nas or the nas admin user. You may have to use the nas computer name (which you have not mentioned what it was) in the auth method with the nas admin user name.

I feel bad because 2 years ago when I was a network administration student we had the same issue when we were building our end projects for class. I have a billion (and one) documents stored from all the stuff me and the other guy (who was the top of the class with me) and we DID figure out how to fix it, it's just after graduation I never got a job in the field (very little up here in South Dakota, and my wife did not want to move) so a lot of the stuff I've forgotten. I can't even remember where I stored all of the crap we read to try to fix the issue. ?Send LM & NTLM responses - use NTLMv2..." does sound VERY familiar though. If I remember right, those older NAS systems do not play well and there is some policy you need to change dealing with that. I feel horrible, it's on the tip of my damn tongue but I just can't spit it out... Lemme keep rolling it around my head for awhile and I'll try to get back to you.

Again, you do not use windows logins....you will never auth with windows logins. You might as well try logging in with the user name of jesus and the password I am god, it will yield the same results.

You need to login with a user that was created on the nas or the nas admin user. You may have to use the nas computer name (which you have not mentioned what it was) in the auth method with the nas admin user name.

again, im not using the windows login to try to access the NAS. Budman asked about the windows user i was trying, implying that it's a group policy issue.

just a quick summary, as i still believe this is a GP issue, but i simply cant narrow it down.

  • i cannot access a shared folder on the NAS from Server 2008 R2
  • i can access the shared folder on the NAS from Server 2003 and Windows 7
  • i can access folders shared on either Server 2003 or Windows 7 from 2008 R2
  • The shared folder on the NAS uses an account local to the NAS - not tied to any specific computer, server, or domain
  • there is no domain involved at all

and thanks to all that have been helping me so far :beer:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • There are so many of these apps now that do this, what do people recommend?
    • Just the price of doing business. The scamble to pull as much from the web as possible is happening, and it's happening before a case like this changes how or what is legal do to with AI in terms of data harvesting. But even then as we've seen with the likes of Google who ignore cookie requests and just accept the fact they'll get fined, it's built into their business price model now. AI is here, its not going away. Their reward if any from the court case would be best suited to trying to incorprate AI or licence their end points as authentic human verified content. The problem is, as we've seen these same news papers are using AI themselves.
    • Which finger's fingernail are we talking about? I can see how not having this info can lead to massive differences in interpretation.
    • This Chinese company is reportedly developing a feature Apple and Samsung can only dream of by Hamid Ganji While companies like Apple and Samsung have been relatively conservative with their devices’ battery capacities in recent years, Chinese manufacturers have taken the competition to the next level by introducing significantly larger batteries. However, the latest report from China suggests that a local company may already be developing a smartphone with a whopping 14,000mAh battery. Chinese leaker Digital Chat Station claimed on Weibo that a smartphone maker is developing a device with a 14,000mAh battery. If true, it would be the largest battery ever used in a smartphone and could, in theory, provide up to a week of battery life on a single charge. The leaker did not reveal the name of the company behind the device, but there are some clues. This week, HONOR unveiled the X80 Pro Max in China with an 11,000mAh battery and 90W wired charging support. The company also launched the Honor Win in January, which packs a 10,000mAh battery. HONOR, a former subsidiary of Huawei, has a proven track record of developing smartphones with unusually large batteries. However, other Chinese brands, including Xiaomi, have also launched devices such as the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max with 7,500mAh batteries. Though Chinese users on Weibo also believe the company behind the new battery is HONOR. Interestingly, Digital Chat Station said the device with the 14,000mAh battery weighs around 220 grams, making it lighter than the Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max (233 grams) and slightly heavier than the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (214 grams). The iPhone 17 Pro Max currently packs a 5,088mAh battery in eSIM-only versions, while the Galaxy S26 Ultra features a 5,000mAh battery. Neither device is expected to see a dramatic increase in battery capacity in its next-generation successor. So when it comes to battery comparison, Chinese brands are unbeaten. HONOR smartphones are currently available in the EU, but the Chinese brand has no official presence in the United States due to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      461
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      172
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      136
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!