locked
File sharing no longer works after VmWare installed RRS feed

  • Question

  • After installing VMWare access to shared files on the host computer is blocked, both to the VMWare client and to other networked computers. I did notice that the virtual network that VMWare sets up is identified as Public, causing my location to be public. I changed all networks to private and the location is now "Home or Work", but I still have no access.

     

    If I disable the firewall, I have access to the shares from both the VMWare client and networked computers.

     

    Any clue what's going on?

     

    This is V2.0.2392.4.

     

    Thanks!

     

    Erik

    Monday, November 5, 2007 8:50 PM

Answers

  • Logged a bug and also reported to the support desk, as requested. Support had me enable ICMPv4 Inbound packet handling and now the VMWare client and other computers can see the host's shares. They also wanted me to enable shares on the Internet, thankfully that wasn't necessary (good, cuz I wasn't going to do it anyhow).

     

    Still, it strikes me that enabling ICMPv4 packet handling degrades the firewall's protections, no?

     

    I mean, in the limit, I could just turn off the firewall. That "works" too. But then the Vista security monitor pops up all kinds of toast warning me of the legion malware waiting to invade my computer and privacy and steal my Twitter password.

     

    Really the problem is that two private networks (maybe one of which is virtual) confuse the firewall into thinking it's in a public environment, despite the fact that it claims it's local. Correct? To make a short story long: would I be wrong in pursuing this as a bug in OneCare? In Vista?

     

    Thanks,

    Erik

    Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:12 AM

All replies

  • Early in the beta, there was a bug where virtual NICs caused what you are describing. It was supposed to have been fixed. Please contact support and also file a bug.

    Support for 2.0 Beta - http://help.live.com/help.aspx?project=onecarev2 - use the "Get More Help" link in the lower right of the page to contact support via email.

     

    Please file a bug on Connect: https://connect.microsoft.com/site/sitehome.aspx?SiteID=168

    See the Bug Submission Guide - http://connect.microsoft.com/content/content.aspx?ContentID=3480&SiteID=168 - for details on how to create and submit the Support Log zip file with your bug.

     

    -steve

    Tuesday, November 6, 2007 1:34 AM
    Moderator
  • Logged a bug and also reported to the support desk, as requested. Support had me enable ICMPv4 Inbound packet handling and now the VMWare client and other computers can see the host's shares. They also wanted me to enable shares on the Internet, thankfully that wasn't necessary (good, cuz I wasn't going to do it anyhow).

     

    Still, it strikes me that enabling ICMPv4 packet handling degrades the firewall's protections, no?

     

    I mean, in the limit, I could just turn off the firewall. That "works" too. But then the Vista security monitor pops up all kinds of toast warning me of the legion malware waiting to invade my computer and privacy and steal my Twitter password.

     

    Really the problem is that two private networks (maybe one of which is virtual) confuse the firewall into thinking it's in a public environment, despite the fact that it claims it's local. Correct? To make a short story long: would I be wrong in pursuing this as a bug in OneCare? In Vista?

     

    Thanks,

    Erik

    Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:12 AM
  • Hi, Erik. I think handling it as a bug report in OneCare was the way to go. I don't believe you're degrading the security at all by allowing ICMPv4 inbound, though. I believe it is the protocol that responds to a ping, actually. (I could be wrong on that last part)

    I think you're right about the way VMWare sets up the network. Virtual PC doesn't seem to handle it the same way as I didn't enable ICMP for it to work.

    -steve

     

    Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:47 AM
    Moderator
  • Thanks, Steve. I can learn to stop worrying about ICMPv4 Inbound. Virtual PC did not seem to have this problem for me either (dang I wish it had USB support!), though I was having horrible problems with UAC interference. But that's likely either Vista or even (!) this side of the glass.

     

    I do wish the firewall would stop changing the virtual network to Public on every reboot. But that's a separate issue and a separate bug report. (The support answer there was to uncheck the "Automatically suspend network connections in a public place" box. *sigh* I guess that's okay so long as I don't cart my desktop to an airport terminal or Starbucks....)

     

    Anyhow, thanks.

    -Erik

    Friday, November 9, 2007 9:29 PM
  • LOL! I just had an image of myself lugging a desktop PC to the airport. How do think Security would go for that?

    I do believe that the private/public bug for the virtual adapter is supposed to be fixed, if not by release, in a subsequent update. Bug it anyway, though!

    -steve

     

    Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:09 AM
    Moderator
  • Steve's basically right about ICMPv4, though it also supports things like TraceRoute too. The better question though is are you behind a NAT router or other basic hardware firewall? If so, there's really no point in being concerned, because a ping can't reach your PC anyway without some special configuration of the router/firewall.

     

    I'd also be more concerned if this was a laptop. I actually have taken an original IBM PC, including the monochrome monitor, as checked baggage on a flight to Comdex in Las Vegas. It weighed in at 69 1/2 Lbs. in an aluminum case with minimum padding. It's not fun dragging that through the terminal and on the escalator in a rush to make a flight! Of course, I didn't have many malware worries in 1985 since the only networking we had was an original COM port and wireless still meant a radio! In fact, that's what we were showing, a multidrop RS485 based network of LED display signs with the simple collision based protocol I'd designed.

     

    Boy I'll bet the kids are confused reading this...

     

    OneCareBear

    Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:30 AM
    Moderator
  • >> and wireless still meant a radio

     

    Good Heavens man! Even in 1985 only Grandpa called it a wireless. And that's because the code running his network was Morse. You didn't like the Compaq Portable? I think it barely weighed 67 1/2 pounds. Though maybe the 2"x1" display wasn't all that hot for demos...

     

    Yeah, I'm behind a h/w firewall. At home it's the best $60 can buy and at work it's something even better. In both cases they're blocking pings. So I'll relax about the ICMPv4 protocol and I can even be sanguine about the public/private thing until there's an update.

     

    Thanks!

    -Erik

    Monday, November 12, 2007 6:38 PM