kill security=share and security=server

David Collier-Brown davec-b at
Mon May 14 10:37:21 MDT 2012

On 05/14/2012 12:01 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:56:20PM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>>> Does Windows7 supports that, if not we should get rid of it.
>>>> And I'd also love to get rid of security=server
>>>> and auth/auth_server.c
>>> Yes, please deprecate that too.  There are more users of security=server
>>> (SMB servers running without IT authorization in large companies), but
>>> we need to put the signal out there that this isn't the right way to
>>> handle the problem, even if we renege on removing the feature in future.
>> Now where we removed security=share support, I think we should
>> also remove security=server.
>> I'd like to push the following patches...
> +1 from me !
> Jeremy.
One remaining use of security=server is in companies where one part of
the IT department will not grant permission to another part of the
department to have member servers. 

Is it a good idea? No, but consider the alternative (:-))

Of course, if there's a better way to get around the problem, then I
*entirely* agree.


David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb at           |                      -- Mark Twain
(416) 223-8968

More information about the samba-technical mailing list