request to remove security=share

[Christopher R. Hertel]

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
> possibility.
> 
> 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?
> 
> Volker

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.

Chris -)-----

-- 
"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