Re: Insecure SMB1?
That is fair enough, but by that criteria IPV6 and SMB2 and SMB3 (which is a version of SMB2) share the same 'insecurity' and should be disabled at the same time.
IPV6 contains provision for IPSEC security, which is not commonly used: SMB from Windows 98 was not used with packet signing or packet encryption, allowing MiM attacks.
If you are worried about things like telnet, then you should not use Win98 without the Win2K compatiblity update that permitted packet signing and secure-channel encryption.
SMB1 was replaced with SMB2 because SMB1 was chatty and verbose, which, when implemented over IPV4 with encryption and signing, added latency. The latency was addressed by SMB2.
More recently, AES has been added to the SMB encryption suite, and the Win Server 2019 SMB component defaults to secure channel for all communications. That's an improvement in security. It doesn't magically mean all communications without AES are "insecure", or that the more chatty protocol was magically "insecure", or that SMB1 was specifically and equally as "insecure" as NFS, and it doesn't address the "insecurity" of SMB3 used with non-AES Windows and SAMBA servers.