| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Loke
Apprentice
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 274
Location: Norway
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:51 pm Post subject: Anonymous samba sharing for win clients |
 |
|
Ive managed to set up anonymous samba sharing which works as intended for linux clients, but when trying to browse them in windows I get a password prompt.
Is it even possible to share files over samba without having to mess with /etc/passwd or smbpasswd? I dont want to add a user to be able to share files over samba, but I cant figure out how to do it.
Thanks for any suggestions
_________________
I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, I'm saying why don't we take the warning labels off of everything, and let the problem take care of itself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NightSpirit
n00b
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 71
Location: North London, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi. It certainly is possible to do that.
If you include the following in the Globals section:
And have entries similar to the following for your shares:
| Code: |
[Music]
path = /pub/music
comment = Music Archive
public = yes
read only = yes
|
That should enable anyone on a windows machine in your network to browse that safely and without password prompting. If that doesn't work or you are unable to do it that way then post your config and hopefully someone will offer a better solution. 
_________________
Currently playing with Applescript ... hmmm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemma
Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002
Posts: 416
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Anonymous samba sharing for win clients |
|
|
| Loke wrote: | | Is it even possible to share files over samba without having to mess with /etc/passwd or smbpasswd? I dont want to add a user to be able to share files over samba, but I cant figure out how to do it. |
If you want to keep the security=user setting, you can do like this:
| Code: | [global]
[...]
security = user
guest account = nobody
map to guest = Bad User
[...]
[public]
path = /path/to/public
comment = Public area
guest ok = yes
browsable = yes
force user = nobody
force group = nobody
read only = no
|
_________________
Always make it as simple as possible, but no simpler
/Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Loke
Apprentice
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 274
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What differences does security = user and security = share represent for me?
_________________
I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, I'm saying why don't we take the warning labels off of everything, and let the problem take care of itself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemma
Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002
Posts: 416
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Loke wrote: | | What differences does security = user and security = share represent for me? |
In short, Security = user represents a higher security level. | man smb.conf wrote: | | The default is security = user, as this is the most common setting needed when talking to Windows 98 and Windows NT. |
| man smb.conf wrote: | If your PCs use usernames that are the same as their usernames
on the UNIX machine then you will want to use security = user.
If you mostly use usernames that don't exist on the UNIX box
then use security = share.
You should also use security = share if you want to mainly setup
shares without a password (guest shares). This is commonly used
for a shared printer server. It is more difficult to setup guest
shares with security = user, see the map to guest parameter for
details. |
_________________
Always make it as simple as possible, but no simpler
/Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Loke
Apprentice
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 274
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read the smb.conf before posting, but perhaps you misunderstood my question - so: Why would one want to map to guest in my situation described above, when you could use security = share?
I still fail to see the difference in my situation - but great to know there are more ways towards the goal 
_________________
I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, I'm saying why don't we take the warning labels off of everything, and let the problem take care of itself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CMI
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Loke wrote: | I read the smb.conf before posting, but perhaps you misunderstood my question - so: Why would one want to map to guest in my situation described above, when you could use security = share?
I still fail to see the difference in my situation - but great to know there are more ways towards the goal |
security = share is global. If you have any other shares you will have to use share level passwords as well.
_________________
SECOMGroup - Lineman.net
LightPHPCMS - PhotoGallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Networking & Security
