Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #236013 > unrolled thread

cannot mount smartphone anymore

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-12 03:00 +0200
    Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 11:10 +0200
      Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-12 16:10 +0200
        Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 18:30 +0200
          Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-12 18:50 +0200
            Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 20:10 +0200
              Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-12 22:00 +0200
                Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2021-06-13 09:00 +0200
                  Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-06-13 15:10 +0200
                  Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-13 17:10 +0200
                    Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-06-13 18:20 +0200
                      Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2021-06-13 21:00 +0200
                        Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-13 22:00 +0200
                      Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-13 22:00 +0200
                        Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-14 08:30 +0200
                          Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-14 09:50 +0200
                            Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2021-06-14 10:00 +0200
                            Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-15 06:00 +0200
                              Re: cannot mount smartphone anymore Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-06-15 06:20 +0200

#236013 — cannot mount smartphone anymore

I use to use this little zsh

  #! /bin/zsh
  mount-smartphone () {
      jmtpfs $(mktemp -d phone.XXXXXX)
  }
  alias smph=mount-smartphone

to mount the Samsung Galaxy Note 2 LTE GT-N7105 16GB (t0lte,
Android 4.4.2) smartphone filesystem in my $HOME.

But suddenly it doesn't work, it says:

  Device 0 (VID=04e8 and PID=6860) is a Samsung Galaxy models (MTP).
  libusb_get_active_config_descriptor(1) failed: No data available
  no active configuration, trying to set configuration
  libusb_get_active_config_descriptor(2) failed: No data available
  LIBMTP PANIC: Unable to initialize device
  terminate called after throwing an instance of 'MtpErrorCantOpenDevice'
  what():  Can't open device

Idea?

TIA

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#236020

Emanuel Berg wrote:

> But suddenly it doesn't work, it says:
> 
> Device 0 (VID=04e8 and PID=6860) is a Samsung Galaxy models (MTP).
> libusb_get_active_config_descriptor(1) failed: No data available
> no active configuration, trying to set configuration
> libusb_get_active_config_descriptor(2) failed: No data available
> LIBMTP PANIC: Unable to initialize device
> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'MtpErrorCantOpenDevice'
> what():  Can't open device

On the phone did you allow the PC to access the phone?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236028

deloptes wrote:

>> But suddenly it doesn't work, it says:
>> 
>> Device 0 (VID=04e8 and PID=6860) is a Samsung Galaxy models (MTP).
>> libusb_get_active_config_descriptor(1) failed: No data available
>> no active configuration, trying to set configuration
>> libusb_get_active_config_descriptor(2) failed: No data available
>> LIBMTP PANIC: Unable to initialize device
>> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'MtpErrorCantOpenDevice'
>> what(): Can't open device
>
> On the phone did you allow the PC to access the phone?

I don't remember this was anything one had to do but no, how
do you do that?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236032

Emanuel Berg wrote:

> I don't remember this was anything one had to do but no, how
> do you do that?

I don't use iphone/android, but last time I did (2-3 months ago), when I
plugged the cable it prompted on the phone and asked if I allow the access
for this device.
If it is not prompted look at the logs (dmesg -T) after plugging the cable
and best paste here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236033

deloptes wrote:

>> I don't remember this was anything one had to do but no, how
>> do you do that?
>
> I don't use iphone/android, but last time I did (2-3 months
> ago), when I plugged the cable it prompted on the phone and
> asked if I allow the access for this device. If it is not
> prompted

It says, "Connected as a media device".

> look at the logs (dmesg -T) after plugging the cable and
> best paste here.

[Sat Jun 12 18:42:12 2021] usb 1-4: new high-speed USB device number 3 using xhci_hcd
[Sat Jun 12 18:42:12 2021] usb 1-4: New USB device found, idVendor=04e8, idProduct=6860, bcdDevice= 4.00
[Sat Jun 12 18:42:12 2021] usb 1-4: New USB device strings: Mfr=2, Product=3, SerialNumber=4
[Sat Jun 12 18:42:12 2021] usb 1-4: Product: GT-N7105
[Sat Jun 12 18:42:12 2021] usb 1-4: Manufacturer: samsung
[Sat Jun 12 18:42:12 2021] usb 1-4: SerialNumber: 42f7c50d4f409fdf
[Sat Jun 12 18:42:12 2021] usb 1-4: Device is not authorized for usage

"Device is not authorized for usage", that's probably the
problem, right?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236035

Emanuel Berg wrote:

> "Device is not authorized for usage", that's probably the
> problem, right?

google says in context of Ubuntu - USBGuard 
the package is also in debian - could be you have it installed?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236043

deloptes wrote:

>> "Device is not authorized for usage", that's probably the
>> problem, right?
>
> google says in context of Ubuntu - USBGuard the package is
> also in debian - could be you have it installed?

I did, and when I removed it, it works again!

Thanks a lot!

Straight expert advice!

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236052

Hi,

12 juin 2021, 21:54 de moasenwood@zoho.eu:

> deloptes wrote:
>
>>> "Device is not authorized for usage", that's probably the
>>> problem, right?
>>>
>>
>> google says in context of Ubuntu - USBGuard the package is
>> also in debian - could be you have it installed?
>>
>
> I did, and when I removed it, it works again!
>
Removing usbguard is maybe a drastic decision, isn't?
Or maybe you don't want this package anymore for other reasons?

Otherwise, you could just add a rule authorizing your device to connect:

sudo usbguard append-rule 'allow id XXXX:XXXX serial "XXXX" name "XXXX" hash "XXXX" parent-hash "XXXX" with-interface XX:XX:XX'

sudo usbguard list-devices
will tell you the correct parameters (of course usbguard must be running and your device connected/blocked).

Best regards,
l0f4r0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236055

On 2021-06-13, l0f4r0@tuta.io <l0f4r0@tuta.io> wrote:
>
> Otherwise, you could just add a rule authorizing your device to connect:
>
> sudo usbguard append-rule 'allow id XXXX:XXXX serial "XXXX" name "XXXX" hash "XXXX" parent-hash "XXXX" with-interface XX:XX:XX'
>
> sudo usbguard list-devices
> will tell you the correct parameters (of course usbguard must be running and your device connected/blocked).


 You can generate a ruleset based on your currently attached USB devices
 by executing usbguard generate-policy > /etc/usbguard/rules.conf as
 root.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/USBGuard

I'm for taking the route of least resistance (to my hebetude).

> Best regards,
> l0f4r0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236063

l0f4r0 wrote:

> Removing usbguard is maybe a drastic decision, isn't?
> Or maybe you don't want this package anymore for
> other reasons?

No, why do I need it for?

Anyway it is removed now...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236065

On 2021-06-13, Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> wrote:
> l0f4r0 wrote:
>
>> Removing usbguard is maybe a drastic decision, isn't?
>> Or maybe you don't want this package anymore for
>> other reasons?
>
> No, why do I need it for?

He probably assumed you installed it intentionally, and so for a reason,
as it appears to be an optional package.


> Anyway it is removed now...
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236075

Hi,

13 juin 2021, 17:51 de curty@free.fr:

> On 2021-06-13, Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> wrote:
>
>> l0f4r0 wrote:
>>
>>> Removing usbguard is maybe a drastic decision, isn't?
>>> Or maybe you don't want this package anymore for
>>> other reasons?
>>>
>> No, why do I need it for?
>>
> He probably assumed you installed it intentionally, and so for a reason,
> as it appears to be an optional package.
>
Exactly! You should have had a good reason Emanuel to install it at the first place, no?

This package can be useful to limit access to your computer usb ports (in case you leave the machine unattended).

Best regards,
l0f4r0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236079

l0f4r0 wrote:

>> He probably assumed you installed it intentionally, and so
>> for a reason, as it appears to be an optional package.
>>
> Exactly! You should have had a good reason Emanuel to
> install it at the first place, no?

I don't remember.

> This package can be useful to limit access to your computer
> usb ports (in case you leave the machine unattended).

That doesn't sound like me. I have autologin enabled and
I never lock the front door...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236078

Curt wrote:

>>> Removing usbguard is maybe a drastic decision, isn't?
>>> Or maybe you don't want this package anymore for
>>> other reasons?
>>
>> No, why do I need it for?
>
> He probably assumed you installed it intentionally, and so
> for a reason, as it appears to be an optional package.

If so I don't remember why :)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236090

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Du, 13 iun 21, 21:49:03, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> 
> >>> Removing usbguard is maybe a drastic decision, isn't?
> >>> Or maybe you don't want this package anymore for
> >>> other reasons?
> >>
> >> No, why do I need it for?
> >
> > He probably assumed you installed it intentionally, and so
> > for a reason, as it appears to be an optional package.
> 
> If so I don't remember why :)

But aptitude might know:

    aptitude why usbguard


Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236092

Andrei POPESCU wrote:

>>>>> Removing usbguard is maybe a drastic decision, isn't?
>>>>> Or maybe you don't want this package anymore for
>>>>> other reasons?
>>>>
>>>> No, why do I need it for?
>>>
>>> He probably assumed you installed it intentionally, and so
>>> for a reason, as it appears to be an optional package.
>> 
>> If so I don't remember why :)
>
> But aptitude might know:
>
>     aptitude why usbguard

OK:

i   gnome-online-accounts Recommends gnome-control-center (>= 3.6.1)
i A gnome-control-center  Depends    gnome-settings-daemon (>= 3.37)
i A gnome-settings-daemon Suggests   usbguard                       

Not really a GNOME user so again don't know what that means...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236094

	Hi.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 09:46:02AM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> >>>>> Removing usbguard is maybe a drastic decision, isn't?
> >>>>> Or maybe you don't want this package anymore for
> >>>>> other reasons?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, why do I need it for?
> >>>
> >>> He probably assumed you installed it intentionally, and so
> >>> for a reason, as it appears to be an optional package.
> >> 
> >> If so I don't remember why :)
> >
> > But aptitude might know:
> >
> >     aptitude why usbguard
> 
> OK:
> 
> i   gnome-online-accounts Recommends gnome-control-center (>= 3.6.1)
> i A gnome-control-center  Depends    gnome-settings-daemon (>= 3.37)
> i A gnome-settings-daemon Suggests   usbguard                       
> 
> Not really a GNOME user so again don't know what that means...

It means this, based on the package changelog:

gnome-settings-daemon (3.35.91-1) experimental; urgency=medium

  [ Sebastien Bacher ]
  * New upstream release:
    - Add capability to disable USB while the lockscreen is on
      (based on USBGuard)
  * debian/control.in:
    - Suggests usbguard for the new lockscreen protection, the feature
      didn't get much testing yet and usbguard could create problems so
      don't bring it in by default yet


I.e. what it should do is to deny any usb devices from configuring while
you have a lockscreen on. The changelog message also shows that
currently one have to install Suggests type of dependency to get this
feature.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236117

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 14 iun 21, 09:46:02, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >> 
> >> If so I don't remember why :)
> >
> > But aptitude might know:
> >
> >     aptitude why usbguard
> 
> OK:
> 
> i   gnome-online-accounts Recommends gnome-control-center (>= 3.6.1)
> i A gnome-control-center  Depends    gnome-settings-daemon (>= 3.37)
> i A gnome-settings-daemon Suggests   usbguard                       
> 
> Not really a GNOME user so again don't know what that means...

This suggests (no pun intended) it was installed manually
(`apt list usbguard` would confirm this), as Suggests are not installed 
by default.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236118

Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> This suggests (no pun intended) it was installed manually
> (`apt list usbguard` would confirm this), as Suggests are
> not installed by default.

alias ai='sudo apt-get --install-suggests install'
https://dataswamp.org/~incal/conf/.zsh/apt

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web