IPC User Problem (was Situational Deadlock)

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 08:23, Esh, Andrew wrote:
> Yes, I agree that force settings are probably being misused for 
> other shares, and the change I am suggesting would leave the 
> enforcement in place for those shares. I don't feel as though 
> the same rules should apply to IPC, however. Why would someone 
> ever want to limit access to IPC? It appears to allow full access 
> as the guest user as a matter of course. Doesn't IPC live under 
> a different set of rules within Windows?

perhaps we should not honour any form of 'force user' on IPC$ - the
problem is that we can't just make everybody guest on IPC$, as things
like remote user administration occurs over this share, as the
authenticated user.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20040129/0bc71ab7/attachment.bin