request to remove security=share
Christopher R. Hertel
crh at ubiqx.mn.org
Fri Mar 10 08:18:46 GMT 2006
Volker Lendecke wrote:
> Hi, Carsten!
> Removing security=share would get rid of quite a bit of ugly
> code, so this sounds very appealing. However, I think there
> are still quite a number of users of that out there.
> One prominent use I think is to have the completely open, no
> password whatsoever, file server. If we have good docs
> around how to achieve this easily, then this might become a
> For that kind of move, we might ask on samba at samba.org.
> Jerry, what do you think? Maybe deprecating that setting for
> a while with a debug level zero message at smbd startup?
Share mode security is, technically, deprecated in NT LM 0.12. On the
other hand, Windows 98 negotiates NT LM 0.12 and it only offers share-mode
security unless it's doing pass-through auth. Go figure. :)
Also, Samba doesn't really do share-mode auth. It does a kludged form of
user-mode auth and makes it work like share-mode... and it works really
well. The problem is, Samba really does need a user ID to assign to the
connection. The fudge that we use makes it easy for the sysadmin to decide
which user and password to use for each share-mode share.
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh at ubiqx.org
More information about the samba-technical