A bug maybe; Write list access to Read only share; security = share?

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Christopher R. Hertel wrote:

| Situations which come to mind include:
| - Tech conferences, seminars, and such-like in which you
| might want to provide access for a group of people
| without the hassle of creating one (or more) new users
| on the system.
| - Small networks, isolated or behind a firewall, with users
| of various ages and abilites (eg., my home network).  I have
| some shares at home that are set up this way to
| make it simpler for my kids.
|
| Share-mode security has been around since the start of
| CIFS.  It's old,  and not particularly secure, but there are
| situations in which security  really isn't as much of an issue.

Chris,

I'm still not convinced.  You just talk about share mode
security.  That's not the issue.  The problem I have is
that people want to control authorization based on users
without wanting to explicitly authenticate a user.

That's just plain silly and propagates code that will bit rot.





ciao, jerry
=====================================================================
Alleviating the pain of Windows(tm)      ------- http://www.samba.org
GnuPG Key                ----- http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc
"I never saved anything for the swim back."     Ethan Hawk in Gattaca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCA7KpIR7qMdg1EfYRArrZAJ9O0QevUxs+m1/qkbxF5Pa3tclkHQCeK19y
ByMNz4xxHEok6diTEq23f8k=
=0duo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----