I think MS just did us (and themselves) a disservice.

[Welsh, Armand]

I think the more serious question is:

When did microsoft decide that security should be implemented at the client
level?????  That's not security... It just stops windows from being any more
functional than it could be.  Security should be implemented only at the
level of what is being protected.  If they are protecting a client, then
secure the client, if they are protected the server, than secure the server.
What twisted logic dictates to protect the server, secure the client?????

Microsoft is just plain weird...

-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: acherry at pobox.com [mailto:acherry at pobox.com]
-> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:40 PM
-> To: samba-technical at samba.org
-> Subject: Re: I think MS just did us (and themselves) a disservice.
-> 
-> 
-> 
-> I don't think this is new to Windows 2000 - I've seen it 
-> several times in
-> Windows NT 4.0.  (Maybe it only exists above a specific service pack
-> level).  You can connect to different servers using different
-> credentials, but you can't use more than one set of credentials per
-> server.  They must make a special exception for multiplexed SMB
-> connections.
-> 
-> Believe it or not, you can get around this by connecting to the same
-> server using a NETBIOS alias, fully-qualified hostname, or 
-> even the IP
-> address!.  Now THAT'S security!! :-)
-> 
-> 
-> David Collier-Brown writes:
->  > 
->  >         System error 1219 has occurred.
->  >         The credentials supplied conflict with an existing set of 
->  >         credentials. 
->  > 
->  >    RESOLUTION
->  > 
->  >    To make the connection with the other account, disconnect the 
->  >    previous connection(s) to the server. This behavior is 
-> by design 
->  >    for security purposes. 
->  > ---
->  > 
->  >   Previously we were able to connect by providing a different
->  > userid and password on the "net use" line.  Can someone confirm
->  > this is really gone on Windows 2000?
-> 
->