[Samba] User permissions - nil authorised users

I am a bit surprised by the behaviour of Samba user permissions (security =
user) - although in fact it produces exactly what I want! Can I confirm it
is correct, and ask one question?

I have one class of shares (private) which I want only specified users to
access. And another class which I want everyone to be able to access
(public) but with a common password protection for some element of security
from visitors on the lan with laptops etc.

The private shares work fine, as expected with Samba users matching Windows
users.
What surprised me was that by omitting any authorised users for the public
shares it allows (as I wanted it, but not as I expected it) anyone on the
lan to access the public shares by entering a single authorised user name
and password (I set up a general user and password in Samba for this
purpose). I did not set up guest accounts.

I had thought that user security needed to match the users actual user name
and password in windows. So I was surprised by this behaviour.

My question therefore is: is this a valid way to achieve what I want? And as
a follow up, is there a way to require revalidation (this option does not
seem to be accepted).
Thanks
Denys
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/User-permissio...p19248582.html
Sent from the Samba - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:37 PM, dfirth <denys.firth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had thought that user security needed to match the users actual user name
> and password in windows. So I was surprised by this behaviour.

This is not correct. security = user only means that users
authenticate themselves by providing a username/password that matches
a username/password in the *Samba* user database.

By default, Windows uses the currently logged in user to authenticate
against samba, that's why you can seamlessly connect to samba shares
if the windows user/password happens to match a user/password
combination in Samba's user database.

However, you can just as well specify any other username/password to
connect with, independent of the currently logged in Windows user.

HTH,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

OK
Thanks.
But I note that when trying to access shares that have authorised users,
windows either gives you no option to enter a user ("not accessible"), or if
it does, it will not accept a username and password that matches one of the
authorised users.


Richard Foltyn wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:37 PM, dfirth <denys.firth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I had thought that user security needed to match the users actual user
>> name
>> and password in windows. So I was surprised by this behaviour.
>
> This is not correct. security = user only means that users
> authenticate themselves by providing a username/password that matches
> a username/password in the *Samba* user database.
>
> By default, Windows uses the currently logged in user to authenticate
> against samba, that's why you can seamlessly connect to samba shares
> if the windows user/password happens to match a user/password
> combination in Samba's user database.
>
> However, you can just as well specify any other username/password to
> connect with, independent of the currently logged in Windows user.
>
> HTH,
> Richard
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/User-permissio...p19302914.html
Sent from the Samba - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba