[Samba] Samba 3 "public" Access

[John H Terpstra]

Andrew,

Looks like we both answered Jason. :)

Glad you mentioned the "smb ports = 139" issue - I'd overlooked that.

- John T.

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Andrew Bartlett wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 09:47, Jason McCormick wrote:
> >   What are the ramifications of changing security = share from sercurity =
> > ads ?  I was using security = domain before.  Looking at the docs/manpages
> > I'm unclear how other shares will be affected (for the sections that match
> > UNIX == Windows for IT staff).  From reading the manpage, it sounds like
> > if guest ok = yes then it skips checking, but does it fall back to ADS if
> > there's no guest ok directive?
>
> Ok, what has happened here is that in Samba 2.2, if a user logged in
> with valid domain credentials, and did not have an account on the
> system, they were mapped to a 'guest' account.  This is not possible in
> 3.0 (and I think it was a bad idea in the first place).
>
> So, the alternative for you is to create a new server (or more to the
> point, a virtual server configuration) that is in 'security=share' (so
> the remote clients never attempt a user/password login) and has 'guest
> ok' (or even beter 'guest only') set, so that all connections are
> treated as guest, with no questions asked.
>
> include = smb.conf.%L is your freind - but watch out, for this to work
> you must set 'smb ports = 139' or we might not get our 'called name' on
> which we base that.
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>
>

-- 
John H Terpstra
Email: jht at samba.org