That doesn't agree with the facts.

>I have no inside information about SMB. But I do know they do literally thousands, if not millions, of configurations and they would have found the issue. If they thought it serious enough they would have fixed it.
>
>>I believe MS regards itself as a serious networking company. I would expect if they introduce a new network protocol, or a new version of an existing one, it would be subject to a huge matrix of tests with various products, both MS and otherwise.
>>
>>The SMB2 issue arose with the introduction of Windows Vista and the original version of Server 2008 (not R2). At the time VFP was still an active MS product, and Access remains so to this day.
>>
>>Regardless of whatever testing was done, the fact remains there are one or more bugs with SMB2 when used with file-based databases. The kindest explanation is the test matrix did not sufficiently test those products, so they were not found. A less palatable explanation is the bug(s) were found, but MS chose to do nothing about them.
>>
>>You seem to have insider information not available to the rest of us. Could you please let us know the true explanation for the problems with SMB2?