restrict anonymous problem

Andy Bakun abakun at
Wed Jun 19 08:02:01 GMT 2002

On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 09:29, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Read the manpage.  Restrict anonymous doesn't (in 2.2) do what you would
> expect.  Its a bit weird, and basiclly useless.
> As to 'guest ok = no', I don't think you can set that for IPC$.

Depends on your definition of "restrict" (and "weird") -- think
restricted shell (bash -r), you can still use a shell, but what you can
do has been limited.  It does limit anonymous access, but it doesn't
make anonymous access fail in all cases.  It only makes anonymous access
fail if there is already an authenticated connection from that client. 
This makes username based macro substitutions predictable, as NT clients
like to browse share listings anonymously even though they already have
an authenticated connection.  They attempt anonymous browse, which
fails, then try again using the authenticated connection they already
have (this process that NT uses seems backward to me, and I can't be the
only one).  Restrict anonymous was designed to get around this problem.

I know this option was discussed before, but what about 'restrict
anonymous' is different in post 2.2 samba?  I was told it was going to
be removed (or may have been already in post 2.2 versions).  If
'restrict anonymous' is actually going to not allow anonymous
connections, then how is that different than 'guest ok' or not setting a
guest account?  The whole 'restrict anonymous' thing would be useless if
include= lines with macros in them were tried for all current values of
vuser (I think that's the variable) for all connections from that

This is kind of funny because when 'restrict' was suggested as the name
for this option, it made perfect sense.  I can not come up with a usage
of 'restricted access' that means 'no access', restricted means limited,
but apparently there's a misunderstanding when people see 'restrict


More information about the samba-technical mailing list