IPC User Problem (was Situational Deadlock)

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Wed Jan 28 22:04:44 GMT 2004

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

More information about the samba-technical mailing list