>I know there was a thread on MS discontinuing SMBv1, but it turned into a thread about SMB and Samba and I don't care about Samba.
>
>Anyway, I have one DBF on a network drive that our applications go to in order to read connection strings to our SQL Servers where the real data is stored. There is no writing to this DBF. So, many users are accessing this one DBF with a memo file and no CDX. The clients are XP, Windows 7 and 8.1 and maybe some Windows 10. I'm mostly concerned about the XPs.
>
>So, the question is: What happens if we disable SMBv1 to make our network safer from something like the Petya ransonware?

My understanding is the same as Naoto, there is no support in XP for any version of SMB higher than SMB1. Turning off SMB1 would mean that XP workstations would no longer be able to connect to file shares on any server exclusively running SMB2 or higher.

If you want XP machines to access a shared config file, it'll have to be hosted on something still running SMB1. That could be an older/legacy server, a repurposed XP workstation, or some sort of Linux/Samba host. Some routers allow plugging in a USB stick to be shared via SMB so you may already have that capability in place. Otherwise something like a Raspberry Pi 3B with case and power supply can be had for less than $100.