security=DOMAIN -> security=USER, authentication=DOMAINMEMBER

Matthias Wächter matthias at
Mon Nov 15 07:53:43 GMT 1999

On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Mike Harris wrote:

> Matthias,
> Make's sense I'm going to try it out.  I know you'll probably hate me for
> making this suggestion.  But wouldn't it be simpler to change the security=
> parameter to use a simpler model that hides all of this from people?

First of all, "security" has only two option as it has in Windows: SHARE
or USER level security. Everything else might be good-looking and
optimized but is confusing. Everything other than SHARE level security
_is_ USER level security and only differs in the authentication - so I
made the patch where it belongs.

Beside that, most docs in the txtdocs/*.txt don't reflect the fact either,
that currently there is more than security=SHARE and security=USER. With
this patch, they get more in sync with the source than they were for the
last months since we have SERVER and/or DOMAIN security in Samba.

> I still think the below scheme, although technically okay, will cause
> more emails here and elsewell confused about what it means. I agree
> people should RTFM, but in a Windows world where in my experience the
> FMs are quite often horrendously poor, perhaps people have forgotten
> how to. May I suggest the following:
> Share Level:    security=SHARE
> User Level:      security=USER
> Server Level:   security=SERVER
> Member:         security=MEMBER or DOMAINMEMBER or DOMAIN
> PDC:              security=PDC (even though this is actually the same as
> I know that's not quite complete but in this way, no-one's confused about
> DOMAIN members and PDCs (PDC's just a symbol afterall), and no-one can try
> to do security=SHARE, authentication=REMOTESERVER.

These people configure their Samba using Swat. And Swat shows exactly what
to configure - I don't think that anyone will assume that REMOTESERVER
will authenticate a SHARE level security.

Additionally, if someone chooses SHARE level security, he only has to
enter "security=SHARE" in his smb.conf. If he wants REMOTESERVER
authentication, he will not enter the "security=" parameter (or remove it)
and instead enter a "authentication=" line since it's more logical. In
general, noone will ever touch the "security=" parameter again. This will
only be a problem for admins using Samba already, but I think they like
this change.

The problem is, that, currently, "security=" is for _two_ connections:
First, for the connection Samba-Server <-> Client, and second, for the
connection Authentication-Server <-> Samba-Server. This confuses many
people (because they see these two relations), and I think, it's confusing
them more than this way, where each of these connections has it's own
parameter. Of course, we can change the names of them to reflect this even
better. Any suggestions? security -> client security, authentication ->
authentication source ...? I don't want to push _MY_ solution, I want to
push the _BETTER_ solution.

Or the other way round: Having an option for "security=DOMAIN" is "too
easy" for beginners. They see "DOMAIN" and - horray, that's it! They don't
realize that PDC functionality works with something flat like "USER". Now,
to choose between "LOCAL" and "DOMAINMEMBER" security says everything, I

> Mike Harris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matthias Wächter <matthias at>
> To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-NTDOM <samba-ntdom at>
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 9:57 PM
> Subject: security=DOMAIN -> security=USER, authentication=DOMAINMEMBER
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Michael Glauche wrote:
> > >         security = DOMAIN
> > If you want samba to be PDC this MUST be security=user !!!
> > security=DOMAIN = Samba as a Domain member !
> How long will we answer this question in a row? I mean, the question is
> correct with that version of Samba (not everyone does RTFM), but the
> answer should be: Wait for the next release, then this parameter will have
> Voila - here it is. I hope that noone feels steped on his shoes because he
> likes to answer this question and becomes unemployed now ... :-)
> The patch is separated into two pieces: One is a diff for the docs and one
> for the source (should be complete and bug-free but is not tested yet for
> something else than security=USER, authentication=LOCAL (== PDC
> functionality).) The patch is against 2.0.6
> In short: the "security=" option now (again) only has two valid choices:
> "security=share" and "security=user". The other options are now
> sub-options specified with the "authentication=" parameter.
> Share level security:
> =====================
> Old: security = SHARE
> New: security = SHARE
> authentication = LOCAL (*)
> User level security:
> ====================
> Old: security = USER (*)
> New: security = USER (*)
> authentication = LOCAL (*)
> Server level security:
> ======================
> Old: security = SERVER
> New: security = USER (*)
> authentication = REMOTESERVER
> Domain level security:
> ======================
> Old: security = DOMAIN
> New: security = USER (*)
> authentication = DOMAINMEMBER
> (*) denotes default values. If the default value is used the parameter
> does not have to be specified.
> Please, test it and feed comments to me and to the list!
> Sehr Wus,
> - Matthias
> --
> Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind?
> - Wos waas I
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -

Sehr Wus,
- Matthias

Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind?
- Wos waas I

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list