Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Michael Leone]

-> Normally NETBIOS name to IP resolution is done by the DNS, but you
probably don't have one.

NETBIOS name to IP resolutin is (or can be) done by a WINS server (which
SAMBA will emulate, if you tell it to), or - optionally - from an
LMHOSTS files (not LMHOSTS.SAM - that's a SAMple file).

- 

--
Michael J. Leone  Registered Linux user #201348 
ICQ: 50453890 AIM: MikeLeone

PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF
PGP public key:


Foreman, roving paving crew, Dept. of Roads, Hades.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jose M. Sanchez]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Frank McKenna
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 10:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible


Hi Jose,

Thank you for your reply and sorry for the long post everyone.

> 1) Are the user accounts valid.

> "smbclient -L Sambabox -U Windowsuser"

Have done this for all three users and there does not appear to be any
error messages

> is the Windows Login name (that you used on the Windows machine to log

> in initially) that you have added to Samba via "smbpasswd -a 
> Windowsuser".

As far as I know, things are set up correctly for this.

The password that I entered while doing "smbclient -L Sambabox -U
Windowsuser" should be the same as the Linux/Windows password or am I
wrong



Yes and it is case specific!

You can get around this slightly by changing the password hashing
levels...

---

> Normally NETBIOS name to IP resolution is done by the DNS, but you
probably don't have one.

I had DNS set up before I broke my install and had to reinstall the O/S.
I thought that I had everything set up the same way as before but that
would make sense.  I am stumbling around in the dark with this.  How
would I find out if DNS is running?  I know that it is enabled in
smb.comf

> You must then "help" windows. There are several ways to do this...
>
> A) Create a HOSTS file (in the same location as your LMHOSTS or 
> LMHOSTS.SAM example file) which contains the IP - NETBIOS 
> equivalences.

 Not sure where I would put this or what I would have to put in it.

---

The example LMHOSTS.SAM shows you what to do...

Basically if the "name" of your Linux box's SAMBA Netbios name
(specified in smb.conf) is "SAMBABOX" and it's ip is 192.168.0.1 then
you put a line in to HOSTS like this

192.168.0.1 SAMBABOX

Afterwards

"ping SAMBABOX" 

Should return 192.168.0.1

>
> C) Enable the WINS component in Samba and create a local HOSTS entry, 
> and then point the workstations to the Samba box's IP for WINS 
> resolution...

Have done th is except for the local hosts entry.  Could you explain the
"local HOSTS entry" please

---

See above...

> Changing the hashing depth to 8 helps.

This is a new term for me.

---

The

"password level = 8"
"username level = 8"

Entries in smb.conf control how many characters in the user name and
password Samba will "hash" in attempting to match the login name and
passwords.

Say you entered MaryS as a user name and in Windows you also entered the
same.

Windows loves to change the case of entries. As a result Samba may be
seeing MARYS as the username, coming from Samba (or marys). In this case
Samba would not accept the user!

The USERNAME LEVEL = entry tells Samba to try up to 8 characters
changing each to different combinations of uppercase and lower case
letters until it gets a match.

Without it things must be EXACT.


> Also remember that Windows uses Encrypted passwords, when you use 
> SMBCLIENT locally you are sending clear text so if it works locally 
> but not remotely (from Windows) it's likely that you do not have 
> encryption set up properly...
>

In my smb.conf, I have encrypted password = Yes.  On my Windows 98 box,
I have hacked the registry to send passwords in clear text.  On my W2K
box I did nothing in terms of password encryption and I can still log
on.



DAMN that's the problem

You are not consistent!

If encrypted passwords is set to ON in samba then it expects encrypted
passwords from Windows. No wonder your W2K box can log in. It's sending
encrypted passwords while Windows is not.

REVERSE the registry hack in Windows. Make it NOT send cleartext and
reboot.

---

If smb.conf is correct, you may be missing a crypt lib or something else
> and/or too high of a security setting...


Crypt.lib is a new term as well. When you say security settings do you
mean security = user or the settings for Linux itself?

---

Neither, the security level for the Linux box overall. You set this
during installation and you can reset it in the Mandrake Control
center...

---


-JMS




Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jose M. Sanchez]

No it's needed.

I'm speculating, but given what you posted it sounds like you almost
have everything set up properly.

If this is the case the useraccount and/or password being passed is not
recognized by samba.

If a lib were missing you'ld get this behaviour...

Also what version of Windows are you trying to connect with?

-JMS


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Weaver
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:54 AM
To: newbie
Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible


On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:11:14 -0500
"Jose M. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> studiouisly spake these words
to ponder:

> Password Encryption?
> 

as in is encryption turned on? as far as i know it is. is this a bad
thing?
-- 
daRcmaTTeR

Registered Linux User 182496
Mandrake 8.1
-
  3:05am  up 6 days,  5:00,  3 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jose M. Sanchez]

I know exactly what you want to do, but can you get by with something
just slightly less?

The reason I ask is that one way to make things almost do what you want
is to use the

[homes]

Section type configuration and hide the [homes] share itself by making
it non-browseable.

(assuming you eliminated all the other shares for the moment...)

Each user then only sees ONE entry for themselves when they double click
on the server.

This entry is user dependant, so if you log in as Jim, all you see is a
share called "Jim"...

Of course you can actually use the macro functions to make it appear as
machine name, user name, etc. or even the name of a passed variable...
(Samba "logs in" as the authenticated user on the Linux box so you can
pass user specific variables this way...)

Once this is set up, you can always add shares that you do want everyone
to see.

You can replicate this technique for multiple shares, and even to point
certain users to specific directory shares which only appear when they
log in.

Yeah I know you talked about it before, but by hiding the homes share
itself it almost appears to the user that there are user/login specific
shares available... Not really of course...

BTW: the NMB portion of Samba could be easily patched to give you what
you want if the browseable function was changed slightly. This may be
something worth suggesting to the Samba group.

Browsing is already controlled by a boolean per share, if instead it
could be set to use passed variables then you have your cake and
icing...

A thought.

-JMS


-Original Message-
From: Jose M. Sanchez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 8:48 PM
To: 'Julian Opificius'
Subject: RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jose M. Sanchez]

Heh, then the much simpler share level authentication is all you need.

-JMS

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Weaver
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:49 AM
To: newbie
Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible


On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:56:50 -0500
"Jose M. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> studiouisly spake these words
to ponder:

heavens! all I wanna do is just be able to read and write from the
windows box to the linux box and be able to use the Linux printer.
honest. 






Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Frank McKenna]

Hi Jose,

Thank you for your reply and sorry for the long post everyone.

> 1) Are the user accounts valid.

> "smbclient -L Sambabox -U Windowsuser"

Have done this for all three users and there does not appear to be any error
messages

> is the Windows Login name (that you used on the Windows machine to log
> in initially) that you have added to Samba via "smbpasswd -a Windowsuser".

As far as I know, things are set up correctly for this.

The password that I entered while doing "smbclient -L Sambabox -U
Windowsuser" should be the same as the Linux/Windows password or am I wrong

> Normally NETBIOS name to IP resolution is done by the DNS, but you
probably don't have one.

I had DNS set up before I broke my install and had to reinstall the O/S.  I
thought that I had everything set up the same way as before but that would
make sense.  I am stumbling around in the dark with this.  How would I find
out if DNS is running?  I know that it is enabled in smb.comf

> You must then "help" windows. There are several ways to do this...
>
> A) Create a HOSTS file (in the same location as your LMHOSTS or
> LMHOSTS.SAM example file) which contains the IP - NETBIOS equivalences.

 Not sure where I would put this or what I would have to put in it.
>
> C) Enable the WINS component in Samba and create a local HOSTS entry,
> and then point the workstations to the Samba box's IP for WINS
> resolution...

Have done th is except for the local hosts entry.  Could you explain the
"local HOSTS entry" please

> Changing the hashing depth to 8 helps.

This is a new term for me.

> Also remember that Windows uses Encrypted passwords, when you use
> SMBCLIENT locally you are sending clear text so if it works locally but
> not remotely (from Windows) it's likely that you do not have encryption
> set up properly...
>

In my smb.conf, I have encrypted password = Yes.  On my Windows 98 box, I
have hacked the registry to send passwords in clear text.  On my W2K box I
did nothing in terms of password encryption and I can still log on.

If smb.conf is correct, you may be missing a crypt lib or something else
> and/or too high of a security setting...


Crypt.lib is a new term as well. When you say security settings do you mean
security = user or the settings for Linux itself?

TIA

Frank McKenna

Difficulties increase the closer we approach our Goals

Plato ~ "It takes a minute to have a crush on
someone,an hour to like someone and a day to love
someonebut it takes a lifetime to forget someone."

>
> Bear in mind that this is different, but related to the FQDN for your
> machines!
>
> Re: USER B
>
> It sounds like your login is failing, and you are falling thru to a
> "Guest" share which has no rights!
>
> You MUST NOT get an invalid password message, if you do Samba normally
> has rejected the password sent by Windows... See my other posts about
> this...
>
>
> >
> -JMS





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Mark Weaver]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:11:14 -0500
"Jose M. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> studiouisly spake these words to ponder:

> Password Encryption?
> 

as in is encryption turned on? as far as i know it is. is this a bad thing?
-- 
daRcmaTTeR

Registered Linux User 182496
Mandrake 8.1
-
  3:05am  up 6 days,  5:00,  3 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Mark Weaver]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:56:50 -0500
"Jose M. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> studiouisly spake these words to ponder:

> Non domain windows machine authenticate every time they "open" a share.
> 
> Domain controlled machines basically log in once, then have access to
> the resources allocated on a per user basis. 
> 
> Domain controlled machines can also do some "interesting" things...
> 
> E.G. autoconfiguration of printers, network logon scripts, roving
> profiles, etc.
> 
> -JMS
> 

heavens! all I wanna do is just be able to read and write from the windows box to the 
linux box and be able to use the Linux printer. honest. 

how ya'll doing today. I was pretty well fried when i went to bed last night.
-- 
daRcmaTTeR

Registered Linux User 182496
Mandrake 8.1
-
  3:05am  up 6 days,  5:00,  3 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jose M. Sanchez]

Non domain windows machine authenticate every time they "open" a share.

Domain controlled machines basically log in once, then have access to
the resources allocated on a per user basis. 

Domain controlled machines can also do some "interesting" things...

E.G. autoconfiguration of printers, network logon scripts, roving
profiles, etc.

-JMS



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Frank McKenna
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 1:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible


Hi Michael,

> To make things easier, you can set up your Linux box as a domain
controller
> and therefore will only have to deal with username / passwords on the
Linux
> side.  If you want to pursue that, let me know.


Could you please let me know how to do this and why it would be
beneficial

TIA

Frank McKenna

Difficulties increase the closer we approach our Goals

Plato ~ "It takes a minute to have a crush on
someone,an hour to like someone and a day to love someonebut it
takes a lifetime to forget someone."







Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Frank McKenna]

Hi Michael,

> To make things easier, you can set up your Linux box as a domain
controller
> and therefore will only have to deal with username / passwords on the
Linux
> side.  If you want to pursue that, let me know.


Could you please let me know how to do this and why it would be beneficial

TIA

Frank McKenna

Difficulties increase the closer we approach our Goals

Plato ~ "It takes a minute to have a crush on
someone,an hour to like someone and a day to love
someonebut it takes a lifetime to forget someone."





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jose M. Sanchez]

There are two components to this...

1) Are the user accounts valid.

Before trying anything from Windows, you should always...

"smbclient -L Sambabox -U Windowsuser"

Where SAMBABOX is the netbios name of the SAMBA server, and Windowuser
is the Windows Login name (that you used on the Windows machine to log
in initially) that you have added to Samba via "smbpasswd -a
Windowsuser".

If Samba prompts for a password and shows you a list of shares, it's
likely that your problem is not with Samba itself. Which brings us to
part two...

2) Samba "broadcasts" the available shares via it's NMB component.

Samba basically tells the machines that Server \\Sambabox has
\\Sambabox\share1, etc. shares available.

It's up to the Windows machine to "make it back" to the share itself, or
rather to find a way to the Samba server.

The Windows Machine needs a way to resolve the "Sambabox" entry to an IP
address. Since Samba is NOT NT it cant use the same mechanism to do this
that NT utilizes...

Normally NETBIOS name to IP resolution is done by the DNS, but you
probably don't have one. 

You must then "help" windows. There are several ways to do this...

A) Create a HOSTS file (in the same location as your LMHOSTS or
LMHOSTS.SAM example file) which contains the IP - NETBIOS equivalences.

B) Use a local DNS to do the work

C) Enable the WINS component in Samba and create a local HOSTS entry,
and then point the workstations to the Samba box's IP for WINS
resolution...

All three work although A is easiest for small LANs...

You should be able to "ping" the SAMBA box by NETBIOS NAME

I.E. "ping Sambabox" from a command line in Windows should work.

Bear in mind that this is different, but related to the FQDN for your
machines!

Re: USER B

It sounds like your login is failing, and you are falling thru to a
"Guest" share which has no rights!

You MUST NOT get an invalid password message, if you do Samba normally
has rejected the password sent by Windows... See my other posts about
this...

Changing the hashing depth to 8 helps.

Also remember that Windows uses Encrypted passwords, when you use
SMBCLIENT locally you are sending clear text so if it works locally but
not remotely (from Windows) it's likely that you do not have encryption
set up properly...

If smb.conf is correct, you may be missing a crypt lib or something else
and/or too high of a security setting...

-JMS

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Frank McKenna
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 10:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible


I have a similar problem where I can see all three users of my Mandrake
8.0 box in network Neighbourhood.

When I try to log on as user A or C, I get an error message saying that
the password is invalid.  I can then access user B.  When I log on as
user B, I can not log on or access any shares.

This is driving me nuts as well.

Any suggestions?

TIA
Frank McKenna

Difficulties increase the closer we approach our Goals

Plato ~ "It takes a minute to have a crush on
someone,an hour to like someone and a day to love someonebut it
takes a lifetime to forget someone."




Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Dennis Myers]

On Saturday 15 December 2001 21:10, you wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:44:45 -0600
>
> Julian Opificius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> studiouisly spake these words to 
ponder:
> > I'm a little worried, as I said before, about the users mdw1982 and the
> > alexhome in the valid users list in the above definition. It would be
> > better if, until you got all this working, you didn't have account names
> > the same as machine names. I don't know if it's a problem, but it might
> > be better to simplify things till you're sure it's OK to do that. Try
> > taking out mdw1982 and alexhome account names.
> > Also, I'd take out the "write list = ".  The fact that the key word is
> > there but has no arguments will probably make the share essentially
> > read-only.
>
> ok...I've redone the entire configuration. I'm beginning to think that
> there's something really simple that I'm overlooking cause when I attempt
> to map a drive in Network Neighborhood I get as far as making the
> connection where it asks for the password, but I'm not sure which password
> it's asking for cause I give it the password of the user thats trying to
> connect,
>
>   user = markw
>   passwd = casey81
>
> and it doesn't like that one. i've even tried the Linux box's root passwd
> and _that_ doens't work either.
>
> the weird thing that got me going this direction was I opened the config
> file and commented out ALL of the global settings cause i wanted to see how
> things would react, then attempted to connect from the windows machine in a
> terminal. low and behold it asked for a password. But neither my son nor
> myself knew which one it was asking for.
>
> I'm going to take your advice and get rid of the other two users that
> mirror machine names. they're confusing the hell outa me.
>
> O, and BTW... I LOVE british humor. the dryer the better sometimes.
Mark it just came to me that you are trying to look at a share from a windows 
machine on the linux server machine? If that is the case then the windows 
machine wants a file or folder marked shared and it will show a hand palm up 
under the icon in "my computer" .   If you shared a file or drive or whatever 
in windows,  then when you set it up to be shared , you had to right click to 
go to properties and then click on "shared". In the box that pops up it asks 
for a user name and a password, if you put a password in that is the one it 
wants in linneighborhood, if you put no password in then that is what it 
wants.  In other words in the linux linneighborhood when it asks for the user 
and password give it the user name for the windows share and do not enter a 
password, just click on OK, unless you did give it a password when setting up 
the shared file and in that case that is the password to use, You can go back 
in to the windows share process and change the password if need be . I hope 
this is understandable as I have typed it.  If not come back to the list and 
I will try again. HTH
-- 
Dennis M. registered linux user # 180842



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Franki]

are you using samba from 8.1???

if so, go to the cooker and get the 2.2.2 rpms,, they are excellent and
appear to be very stable, have loaded them on mine when they came out and
not restarted since and all is fine..

the default setup,  (just starting smb) will make your home directories
available to whatever login you have..
will also share any cups printers on the box.

then make your samba users, and make them the same as the username and
passwords on your windows box's

so if you have a windows box that you log into as username: markw and
password markwpassword
then use the:
smbpasswd -a markw

to create the user and enter its password..

when your windows box tries to connect to the samba shares, it will by
default send the username and password that the windows box was logged in
as.

I had lots of problems until I got it worked out (by luck the first time),
since then none of my installs has had any problems.


so here is what I would do in your situation, (assuming I understand your
situation.)
1. install 2.2.2 samba all packages, (you don't need all, but what the hell,
they are small.)
2. smbpasswd -a for all users.
3. Doesn't hurt for all samba users to have the same username and password
on the linux box. but you don't have to, you can map a smb user to a
different linux user. but for the purposes of this, lets go with KISS and
match the usernames and passwords.


give that a shot and let me know how you go..


rgds

Frank




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Weaver
Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2001 10:10 AM
To: newbie
Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible


On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:44:45 -0600
Julian Opificius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> studiouisly spake these words to
ponder:

> I'm a little worried, as I said before, about the users mdw1982 and the
> alexhome in the valid users list in the above definition. It would be
> better if, until you got all this working, you didn't have account names
> the same as machine names. I don't know if it's a problem, but it might be
> better to simplify things till you're sure it's OK to do that. Try taking
> out mdw1982 and alexhome account names.
> Also, I'd take out the "write list = ".  The fact that the key word is
> there but has no arguments will probably make the share essentially
read-only.
>

ok...I've redone the entire configuration. I'm beginning to think that
there's something really simple that I'm overlooking cause when I attempt to
map a drive in Network Neighborhood I get as far as making the connection
where it asks for the password, but I'm not sure which password it's asking
for cause I give it the password of the user thats trying to connect,

user = markw
passwd = casey81

and it doesn't like that one. i've even tried the Linux box's root passwd
and _that_ doens't work either.

the weird thing that got me going this direction was I opened the config
file and commented out ALL of the global settings cause i wanted to see how
things would react, then attempted to connect from the windows machine in a
terminal. low and behold it asked for a password. But neither my son nor
myself knew which one it was asking for.

I'm going to take your advice and get rid of the other two users that mirror
machine names. they're confusing the hell outa me.

O, and BTW... I LOVE british humor. the dryer the better sometimes.
--
daRcmaTTeR

Registered Linux User 182496
Mandrake 8.1
-
  8:05pm  up 5 days, 22:00,  3 users,  load average: 0.31, 0.39, 0.37





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Franki]

have you checked the samba mailing list archives? its very likely that
someone else has wanted to do that at some stage..

rgds

Frank

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Opificius
Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2001 2:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible


Thanks very much for taking the trouble to write, Dave.

Yes, I understand what [homes] does, and I am using it for private
directory structures.

The problems with [homes] are that :-
1) It defines a directory mapping (and browse visibility) on a user basis,
not a group basis, and gives the share the name of that particular user, and
2) There can only be one of them, requiring that everything I want to
control must go under that private tree, and therefore everything under
that user tree is private, whether I like it or not, unless I create a
spiderweb of new mounts or links into various parts of that tree. That is
difficult to document and manage.

The problem is that I don't want a single directory tree with my name on it
just visible to me, or any other single person. I want a series of shares
VISIBLE to a GROUP of people, but INVISIBLE to people outside that group.

If there was a group equivalent of [homes] it would be something.

If I could use a psuedo C statement like
 browseable = ((%u == fred) | (%u == jim) | (%g == @engineering));

that would work,
Or, if there was a "browse list" like there is a "write list", then I could
do this :-
[stuff_for_grownups_only]
path = /usr/adult_stuff
read list = @parents
write list = @parents
browse list = @parents

Anybody in the group "parents" can see and access the share, while anyone
not in the group can't even see it, let alone access it.

I've investigated [homes], %u, %m, read list, and chmod. None of these do
what I need. All these tools work on the issue of accessibility. My issue
is visibilibty, not accessibility.

To reiterate one more time ...

I want to make a SERIES of individual shares with their own
USER_INDEPENDANT names VISIBLE "browseable" (or not) as a function of the
identity or group membership of whoever is logged on.

I don't want to map a SINGLE directory tree available with the name of the
particular user. I don't want shares to be visible but not accessible.

See ?

Many thanks again :-)

julian.
===
At 07:35 AM 12/15/01 -0600, you wrote:
>I finally hit upon a similar idea this morning. The generic [Homes]
>share, as defined by Samba, is created on the fly for each particular
>user when they login, and is only visible to that user. It automatically
>maps to the user's Linux account and home directory. Thus, when I login
>on my laptop to my home network, I can see two shares on my Linux Samba
>server: a "Public" share for me and my wife, and a "Dave" share that is
>my home directory. My wife Carrie will never see the Dave share (unless
>she logs in as me), and I will never see the Carrie share (unless I log
>in as her).
>
>Since the Dave share is my own home directory, I can create
>subdirectories, etc. and have them all private for myself. Likewise for
>Carrie. If I want to make a file or directory public to everyone, I can
>just copy or move it to the Public share, and then delete it or move it
>back to my home (Dave) share when I want it to become private again.
>
>Here's my [Homes] definition smb.conf from my server:
>
>[homes]
>comment = Home Directories
>browseable = no
>writable = yes
>guest ok = no
>
>Notice that I do not need to define a path. Samba knows that the share
>definition [Homes] is supposed to point to /home/username, where
>username is the Windows (and Linux) login user name. All I need to do is
>create a Linux user account that matches each Windows user account (name
>and password), and then each Windows user will have a home share that is
>private. Also notice that I do not need to list valid users. Again, this
>is because Samba automatically knows that the only valid user for a
>particular home share is the one user to whom the home directory
>belongs.
>
>Dave
>
>On Sat, 2001-12-15 at 03:54, Jose M. Sanchez wrote:
> > The "solution" is plainly documented, but often overlooked as a
> > result...
> >
> > So here is ONE way of doing what you want easily...
> >
> > You probably have smb.conf share headers already defined in the file...
> > Such as
> >
> > [Bill]
> >   Path = /home/bill
> >   public = no
> >   valid users = bill
> > [Mary]
> >   Path = /home/mary
> >   public = no
> >   valid users = mary
> > [Mark]
> >   Path = /home/ma

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jose M. Sanchez]

Password Encryption?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Weaver
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 11:21 PM
To: newbie
Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

well, I found the file LMHOSTS.SAM on my windows machine and now the
HOSTS.SAM, LMHOSTS.SAM, and HOSTS file all contain the same information
just in case.

127.0.0.1   localhost
192.168.0.1 mdw1982

the linux user is the same as the windows user. I just don't know what
else to look at. it's as though the windows machine is mocking me. I bet
it is!

i'm going to hit the rack for now and maybe get a fresh start in the
morning. maybe there's something I'm missing and a good night's sleep
will help me see it.

thanks for all the help. I'll catch up with you all tomorrow.





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Michael Viron]

>> and it doesn't like that one. i've even tried the Linux box's root passwd
>> and _that_ doens't work either.
>>
>> the weird thing that got me going this direction was I opened the config
>> file and commented out ALL of the global settings cause i wanted to see how
>> things would react, then attempted to connect from the windows machine in a
>> terminal. low and behold it asked for a password. But neither my son nor
>> myself knew which one it was asking for.
>>
>> I'm going to take your advice and get rid of the other two users that
>> mirror machine names. they're confusing the hell outa me.
>>
>> O, and BTW... I LOVE british humor. the dryer the better sometimes.
>Hi, I believe the password it is looking for is one set in the control 
>panel>passwords  It want's a change password and that is where you put in
the 
>user password for the login.  It must be the same, as I understand it as the 
>one you want to access through in samba. Not an expert but fumbling with 
>these issues also.

Guys,

Samba (when you connect via network neighborhood in windows) is expecting
the password for the password associated with the login you used for windows.

There are few things that might happen depending on what exactly your
situation is:

1.  The password for the windows username and the linux username are
different, thus it is asking for the password currently set for the linux
username.

2.  The windows username that you logged into windows with is not a valid
linux username (and is not mapped to a linux username via
/etc/samba/smbusers), in which case it will either ask for a password, or
in the case of windows 2000, will ask for a valid linux username / password
combination.

3.  The username is not a 'valid user' for the share you are trying to
access, and thus it will prompt for either a password (Win 95/98) or a
username / password combination (Win NT / 2000).

To make things easier, you can set up your linux box as a domain controller
and therefore will only have to deal with username / passwords on the linux
side.  If you want to pursue that, let me know.

Michael

--
Michael Viron
Registered Linux User #81978
Senior Systems & Administration Consultant
Web Spinners, University of West Florida



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Julian Opificius]

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to write, Dave.

Yes, I understand what [homes] does, and I am using it for private 
directory structures.

The problems with [homes] are that :-
1) It defines a directory mapping (and browse visibility) on a user basis, 
not a group basis, and gives the share the name of that particular user, and
2) There can only be one of them, requiring that everything I want to 
control must go under that private tree, and therefore everything under 
that user tree is private, whether I like it or not, unless I create a 
spiderweb of new mounts or links into various parts of that tree. That is 
difficult to document and manage.

The problem is that I don't want a single directory tree with my name on it 
just visible to me, or any other single person. I want a series of shares 
VISIBLE to a GROUP of people, but INVISIBLE to people outside that group.

If there was a group equivalent of [homes] it would be something.

If I could use a psuedo C statement like
 browseable = ((%u == fred) | (%u == jim) | (%g == @engineering));

that would work,
Or, if there was a "browse list" like there is a "write list", then I could 
do this :-
[stuff_for_grownups_only]
path = /usr/adult_stuff
read list = @parents
write list = @parents
browse list = @parents

Anybody in the group "parents" can see and access the share, while anyone 
not in the group can't even see it, let alone access it.

I've investigated [homes], %u, %m, read list, and chmod. None of these do 
what I need. All these tools work on the issue of accessibility. My issue 
is visibilibty, not accessibility.

To reiterate one more time ...

I want to make a SERIES of individual shares with their own 
USER_INDEPENDANT names VISIBLE "browseable" (or not) as a function of the 
identity or group membership of whoever is logged on.

I don't want to map a SINGLE directory tree available with the name of the 
particular user. I don't want shares to be visible but not accessible.

See ?

Many thanks again :-)

julian.
===
At 07:35 AM 12/15/01 -0600, you wrote:
>I finally hit upon a similar idea this morning. The generic [Homes]
>share, as defined by Samba, is created on the fly for each particular
>user when they login, and is only visible to that user. It automatically
>maps to the user's Linux account and home directory. Thus, when I login
>on my laptop to my home network, I can see two shares on my Linux Samba
>server: a "Public" share for me and my wife, and a "Dave" share that is
>my home directory. My wife Carrie will never see the Dave share (unless
>she logs in as me), and I will never see the Carrie share (unless I log
>in as her).
>
>Since the Dave share is my own home directory, I can create
>subdirectories, etc. and have them all private for myself. Likewise for
>Carrie. If I want to make a file or directory public to everyone, I can
>just copy or move it to the Public share, and then delete it or move it
>back to my home (Dave) share when I want it to become private again.
>
>Here's my [Homes] definition smb.conf from my server:
>
>[homes]
>comment = Home Directories
>browseable = no
>writable = yes
>guest ok = no
>
>Notice that I do not need to define a path. Samba knows that the share
>definition [Homes] is supposed to point to /home/username, where
>username is the Windows (and Linux) login user name. All I need to do is
>create a Linux user account that matches each Windows user account (name
>and password), and then each Windows user will have a home share that is
>private. Also notice that I do not need to list valid users. Again, this
>is because Samba automatically knows that the only valid user for a
>particular home share is the one user to whom the home directory
>belongs.
>
>Dave
>
>On Sat, 2001-12-15 at 03:54, Jose M. Sanchez wrote:
> > The "solution" is plainly documented, but often overlooked as a
> > result...
> >
> > So here is ONE way of doing what you want easily...
> >
> > You probably have smb.conf share headers already defined in the file...
> > Such as
> >
> > [Bill]
> >   Path = /home/bill
> >   public = no
> >   valid users = bill
> > [Mary]
> >   Path = /home/mary
> >   public = no
> >   valid users = mary
> > [Mark]
> >   Path = /home/mark
> >   public = no
> >   valid users = mark
> >
> > What you've done is effectively defined things which YOU WANT
> > "advertised" by Samba discreetly...
> >
> > -WRONG-!
> >
> > Instead what you want is
> >
> > [home]
> >   path = /home/%m
> >   public = no
> >   writeable = yes
> >   valid users = bill mark mary @validgroup
> >
> > BTW: Samba will create the directories for you automatically as the
> > users attach, if they don't exist.
> > BTW: The @validgroup definition is another way to define valid users...
> >
> > That's it!
> >
> > Huh? (I hear the scratching of the head from here...)
> >
> > Yes the %m is a Samba "on the fly" substituti

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Julian Opificius]

Um, thanks for the rant ...

1) I'm not badmouthing Linux, Samba, or anyone, Mr Sanchez. My comparison 
of KISS vs the rope was a recognition of the power of Linux, while 
acknowledging that it requires skill. The last letter of KISS stands for 
Stupid. The point is, as you eloquently pointed out, that MS and Linux 
people often think differently. As I said in my original post - it's not 
wrong, just different. I am NOT criticizing Linux or Samba.

2) I'm not exhibiting two-dimensional thinking, and I can assure you that 
neither Microsoft nor their metaphors have me by the throat or any other 
part of my mind, body, or soul.

3) I believe %m is a macro which expands to the Netbios name for the client 
machine, not the current user name. I suspect you meant to propose the use 
of %U (session user name), or %u (user name of the current service, if any) .

4) No I don't have specific user shares such as [bill] [mary] and [mark] as 
you've exemplified below. The [homes] section in my smb.conf does that job 
for me perfectly.

I thank you for your consideration of this issue, but I don't think you 
understand what I was asking for.

I don't want the CREATION or MAPPING of a share to be user/group DERIVED. I 
want it's BROWSEABILITY to be CONDITIONAL on user/group membership.

I'm trying to achieve the equivalence of the following:-

browseable = the boolean truth of "the current user is in the following 
list of users, or is a member of one or more of the following list of groups"

Here's a (hopefully) humorous contrived example of what I'd like to be able 
to put in smb.conf:-

[smutty_pics]
path = /usr/pics
public = no
browse list = @engineering @field_sales @it_guys fred george
valid users = @engineering @field_sales @it_guys fred george
write list = @it_guys fred george
printable = no

Note that "browse list" is not legal, but if it was, it would be exactly 
what I want.

Clearly in the above example, it isn't enough just to make the browse 
inaccessible to the ladies in Accounting, it would be better if the share 
was not visible at all. I stress that the above is fictitious, but I think 
it exemplifies what I want.

My actual requirement is simply to make various directories VISIBLE to my 
wife and I, but INVISIBLE to our kids, while NOT having to put it all into 
user directory trees.

Thank you for your help.

Julian Opificius.
=
At 04:54 AM 12/15/01 -0500, you wrote:

>- SEEING THE LIGHT with Samba -
>
>-- Snip ---
>
>I thought of it as a "duh", an obvious feature, and that I was
>overlooking
>the obvious, but apparently not. The more I think about it, it
>demonstrates
>the philosophical difference between Microsoft (the KISS principle) and
>Unix (the long rope - you either do rope tricks or hang yourself). The
>idea
>of iding unavailable shares for the sake of simplicity probably wouldn't
>
>occur to a Unix/Linux programmer. Not that it's wrong, just different.
>
>--- Snip ---
>
>Just like "browseable = no", right?
>No, I want the share to show up or not show up as a function of it's
>accessibility by the current login - i.e. login-dependant, rather than
>definition-dependant.
>
>-- Snip ---
>
>Ouch. You're effectively badmouthing Linux and Samba in the same breath.
>
>The problem is as Mr. Spock put it; you "are exhibiting two-dimensional
>thinking".
>
>The Microsoft metaphors have you firmly by the throat!
>
>Samba does indeed keep it simple with the added advantage of incredible
>flexibility.
>
>This same flexibility is hiding the rather obvious from you, namely you
>are looking at "shares" (as defined by the [sharename] headers) in the
>wrong light.
>
>The "solution" is plainly documented, but often overlooked as a
>result...
>
>So here is ONE way of doing what you want easily...
>
>You probably have smb.conf share headers already defined in the file...
>Such as
>
>[Bill]
> Path = /home/bill
> public = no
> valid users = bill
>[Mary]
> Path = /home/mary
> public = no
> valid users = mary
>[Mark]
> Path = /home/mark
> public = no
> valid users = mark
>
>What you've done is effectively defined things which YOU WANT
>"advertised" by Samba discreetly...
>
>-WRONG-!
>
>Instead what you want is
>
>[home]
> path = /home/%m
> public = no
> writeable = yes
> valid users = bill mark mary @validgroup
>
>BTW: Samba will create the directories for you automatically as the
>users attach, if they don't exist.
>BTW: The @validgroup definition is another way to define valid users...
>
>That's it!
>
>Huh? (I hear the scratching of the head from here...)
>
>Yes the %m is a Samba "on the fly" substitution macro, which gets
>replaced when the user attempts to attach to the share...
>
>So when Mark attaches to the \\SAMBABOX\HOME share he only sees
>/home/mark
>
>Likewise when Mary attaches to it, she only sees /home/mary. Etc.
>
>Samba provides MANY easy ways

RE: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jose M. Sanchez]

- SEEING THE LIGHT with Samba -

-- Snip ---

I thought of it as a "duh", an obvious feature, and that I was
overlooking 
the obvious, but apparently not. The more I think about it, it
demonstrates 
the philosophical difference between Microsoft (the KISS principle) and 
Unix (the long rope - you either do rope tricks or hang yourself). The
idea 
of iding unavailable shares for the sake of simplicity probably wouldn't

occur to a Unix/Linux programmer. Not that it's wrong, just different.

--- Snip ---

Just like "browseable = no", right?
No, I want the share to show up or not show up as a function of it's 
accessibility by the current login - i.e. login-dependant, rather than 
definition-dependant.

-- Snip ---

Ouch. You're effectively badmouthing Linux and Samba in the same breath.

The problem is as Mr. Spock put it; you "are exhibiting two-dimensional
thinking".

The Microsoft metaphors have you firmly by the throat!

Samba does indeed keep it simple with the added advantage of incredible
flexibility.

This same flexibility is hiding the rather obvious from you, namely you
are looking at "shares" (as defined by the [sharename] headers) in the
wrong light.

The "solution" is plainly documented, but often overlooked as a
result...

So here is ONE way of doing what you want easily...

You probably have smb.conf share headers already defined in the file...
Such as

[Bill]
Path = /home/bill
public = no
valid users = bill
[Mary]
Path = /home/mary
public = no
valid users = mary
[Mark]
Path = /home/mark
public = no
valid users = mark

What you've done is effectively defined things which YOU WANT
"advertised" by Samba discreetly...

-WRONG-!

Instead what you want is

[home]
path = /home/%m
public = no
writeable = yes
valid users = bill mark mary @validgroup

BTW: Samba will create the directories for you automatically as the
users attach, if they don't exist.
BTW: The @validgroup definition is another way to define valid users...

That's it!

Huh? (I hear the scratching of the head from here...)

Yes the %m is a Samba "on the fly" substitution macro, which gets
replaced when the user attempts to attach to the share...

So when Mark attaches to the \\SAMBABOX\HOME share he only sees
/home/mark

Likewise when Mary attaches to it, she only sees /home/mary. Etc.

Samba provides MANY easy ways to skin the cat. Microsoft provides one.

Don't mistake Microsoft's restrictions for EASE OF USE. Your familiarity
with Microsoft's metaphors came at a cost. A newbie would be just as
clueless with Microsoft's way of doing things as they would be with
Samba.

Microsoft doesn't make it inherently easy, rather you are used to their
way of thinking.

Samba/Linux does not require rope tricks, just the same "devotion" to
reading the manual (or playing with things) that you at one point
underwent with MS$'s products.

Linux can sing, the 800lb gorilla can only grunt.

My $.02 worth.

-JMS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]






Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Julian Opificius]

Mark,
The first thing is that you say that you're trying to get the Windows box 
to see the Linux box. The next thing is you talk about running smbclient, 
which is used for accessing the Windows box from the Linux box, so I'm a 
little confused.

The smbclient log message? I'm guessing it's telling you that the computer 
called ALEXHOME is not presenting Samba shares, though it probably exists. 
If you attempt to access a computer that doesn't exist, smbclient says 
"connection to  failed", so I'm guessing that ALEXHOME 
exists, but isn't talking Samba. Is ALEXHOME the Linux box or the Windows 
box, and which way are you trying to connect?

Julian.

At 11:05 PM 12/14/01 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:55:41 -0600
>Julian Opificius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> studiouisly spake these words to 
>ponder:
>
>Hi there,
>
>i've got a question about something. I've been following this thread and 
>gleening some info from it. I've got the samba server running on my Linux 
>machine and i'm trying to get my windows box to see the Mandrake box, but 
>i'm not having any luck.
>
>here's what gets returned from this command:
>
>command --> smbclient -L ALEXHOME -U mdw1982
>
>[root@mdw1982 root]# smbclient -L ALEXHOME -U mdw1982
>added interface ip=192.168.0.1 bcast=192.168.0.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
>session request to ALEXHOME failed (Called name not present)
>session request to *SMBSERVER failed (Called name not present)
>-
>
>and here's what i'm finding in /var/log/samba/log.nmbd
>--
>[2001/12/14 22:48:04, 0] nmbd/nmbd_mynames.c:my_name_register_failed(41)
>   my_name_register_failed: Failed to register my name ALEXHOME<00> on 
> subnet 192.168.0.1.
>[2001/12/14 22:48:04, 0] nmbd/nmbd_namelistdb.c:standard_fail_register(292)
>   standard_fail_register: Failed to register/refresh name ALEXHOME<00> on 
> subnet 192.168.0.1
>---
>
>what in the world is it trying to tell me? I'm stumped.
>--
>daRcmaTTeR
>
>Registered Linux User 182496
>Mandrake 8.1
>-
>  10:05pm  up 5 days, 0 min,  2 users,  load average: 0.12, 0.39, 0.37
>
>Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
>Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

==
Julian A. Opificius.
802 Fawn Road, Elk River, MN 55330.
Home: 763.441.1291, Cell: 763.360.5919
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   ICQ: 3268206
==





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Julian Opificius]

Hi again Dexter, thanks for giving this so much thought :-)

I'm afraid your suggestion does not give me what I want. I don't want to 
limit access to files in the share, I want the whole share to not appear at 
all for those logins who don't have access to it. Here's an example, which 
should make it more obvious. Suppose I have a share called 
[letters_from_girlfriends] (I don't, but for the example, say I do). It 
isn't enough just to have my wife not to have access to it, I'd rather she 
didn't even see the share name at all. Got it?

I could do this:-
valid users = @parents
browseable = @parents
it would work. The browseable flag would be a function of the current 
login. Unfortunately, browseable is a boolean, and doesn't take a user or 
group name as an argument, and therefore is either always true or always 
false, irrespective of who is logged in.

julian.

At 08:02 PM 12/14/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello me again:
>
>How about this
>
>If I understand you correctly, you are going to have multiple people use
>samba to access your linux box and you want to limit the availability of
>the files in the share depending on who is logging in.  Well, what if you
>set up multiple accounts in your linbox and limit access accordingly.
>For example, let's say you have usera and userb.  Set up two additional
>accounts in your linbox with the respective usernames and passwords.
>Could you not then set up usera to browseable yes and userb to browseable
>no (or use veto files for that matter)?  You could set the same path for
>both users, but limit them with the browseable option.  If I am not
>mistaken, it would also require to set up multiple accounts in your
>winbox, if you only have one winbox networked to your linbox.  Did I make
>sense?  Hope it helps...
>
>Regards,
>
>Dexter
>
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Julian Opificius wrote:
>
> > Just like "browseable = no", right?
> > No, I want the share to show up or not show up as a function of it's
> > accessibility by the current login - i.e. login-dependant, rather than
> > definition-dependant.
> >
> > Thanks all the same.
> >
> > Julian.
> > ===
> > At 11:55 AM 12/14/01 -0600, you wrote:
> > >This probabally isn't what you want, but if you end a SMB share name with
> > >a '$' it will not show up in browse lists but will still be accessable
> > >(assuming you have rights to the share and the underlying files of 
> course.)
> > >
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Julian Opificius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:44:01 -0600
> > >Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible
> > >
> > >Thanks for the response Dexter.
> > >
> > >No, what I'm looking for is to have shares simply not show up in the
> > >network directory listing if the current user is not authorized to access
> > >them.
> > >
> > >I thought of it as a "duh", an obvious feature, and that I was overlooking
> > >the obvious, but apparently not. The more I think about it, it 
> demonstrates
> > >the philosophical difference between Microsoft (the KISS principle) and
> > >Unix (the long rope - you either do rope tricks or hang yourself). The 
> idea
> > >of iding unavailable shares for the sake of simplicity probably wouldn't
> > >occur to a Unix/Linux programmer. Not that it's wrong, just different.
> > >
> > >Thanks again.
> > >
> > >Julian.
> > >=
> > >At 09:11 AM 12/14/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >Hello:
> > > >
> > > >Have you tried the veto files command?  I have not used it, but the 
> book I
> > > >have has a description for it, which you might find helpful:
> > > >
> > > >veto files:  Contains a list of file and directory names that are marked
> > > >by Samba as not visible and cannot be accessed by users.  Entires in the
> > > >list are separated by the / character, and the ? and * wildcard 
> characters
> > > >can be used.  For example, to veto access to Windows executables 
> files on
> > > >a file share use veto files = /*.exe/*.com/*.bat/.  If the 
> case-sensitive
> > > >parameter is false, Samba will veto files regard to case.
> > > >
> > > >Hopefully, this command can help you solve your problem.  Good luck...
> > > >
> > > >Dexter
> > > >
> > &

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Mark Weaver]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:55:41 -0600
Julian Opificius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> studiouisly spake these words to ponder:

Hi there,

i've got a question about something. I've been following this thread and gleening some 
info from it. I've got the samba server running on my Linux machine and i'm trying to 
get my windows box to see the Mandrake box, but i'm not having any luck.

here's what gets returned from this command:

command --> smbclient -L ALEXHOME -U mdw1982

[root@mdw1982 root]# smbclient -L ALEXHOME -U mdw1982
added interface ip=192.168.0.1 bcast=192.168.0.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
session request to ALEXHOME failed (Called name not present)
session request to *SMBSERVER failed (Called name not present)
-

and here's what i'm finding in /var/log/samba/log.nmbd
--
[2001/12/14 22:48:04, 0] nmbd/nmbd_mynames.c:my_name_register_failed(41)
  my_name_register_failed: Failed to register my name ALEXHOME<00> on subnet 
192.168.0.1.
[2001/12/14 22:48:04, 0] nmbd/nmbd_namelistdb.c:standard_fail_register(292)
  standard_fail_register: Failed to register/refresh name ALEXHOME<00> on subnet 
192.168.0.1
---

what in the world is it trying to tell me? I'm stumped.
-- 
daRcmaTTeR

Registered Linux User 182496
Mandrake 8.1
-
 10:05pm  up 5 days, 0 min,  2 users,  load average: 0.12, 0.39, 0.37



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

RE: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Franki]

well, you could do the whole NT domain thing, and use a standard.bat for
each user (supplied to the user at authentication from the server) that maps
that persons network drives, then you can just set all the shares to
browsable=no

I have been wanting to do that for a while, just never got around to it.

rgds

Frank

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Opificius
Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2001 8:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible


Just like "browseable = no", right?
No, I want the share to show up or not show up as a function of it's
accessibility by the current login - i.e. login-dependant, rather than
definition-dependant.

Thanks all the same.

Julian.
===
At 11:55 AM 12/14/01 -0600, you wrote:
>This probabally isn't what you want, but if you end a SMB share name with
>a '$' it will not show up in browse lists but will still be accessable
>(assuming you have rights to the share and the underlying files of course.)
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Julian Opificius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:44:01 -0600
>Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible
>
>Thanks for the response Dexter.
>
>No, what I'm looking for is to have shares simply not show up in the
>network directory listing if the current user is not authorized to access
>them.
>
>I thought of it as a "duh", an obvious feature, and that I was overlooking
>the obvious, but apparently not. The more I think about it, it demonstrates
>the philosophical difference between Microsoft (the KISS principle) and
>Unix (the long rope - you either do rope tricks or hang yourself). The idea
>of iding unavailable shares for the sake of simplicity probably wouldn't
>occur to a Unix/Linux programmer. Not that it's wrong, just different.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>Julian.
>=
>At 09:11 AM 12/14/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hello:
> >
> >Have you tried the veto files command?  I have not used it, but the book
I
> >have has a description for it, which you might find helpful:
> >
> >veto files:  Contains a list of file and directory names that are marked
> >by Samba as not visible and cannot be accessed by users.  Entires in the
> >list are separated by the / character, and the ? and * wildcard
characters
> >can be used.  For example, to veto access to Windows executables files on
> >a file share use veto files = /*.exe/*.com/*.bat/.  If the case-sensitive
> >parameter is false, Samba will veto files regard to case.
> >
> >Hopefully, this command can help you solve your problem.  Good luck...
> >
> >Dexter
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Julian Opificius wrote:
> >
> > > I've pored over man on the Samba web-site, and yes, you remember
> > correctly ;-)
> > >
> > > It's true that though "browseable = no" hides a share from everyone,
you
> > > can still map to it, but then how does one know it's there? That's
> cryptic
> > > and unreasonably clumsy for non-expert users (which includes me), who
> have
> > > other things to remember, like where we've put the car keys.
> > >
> > > Seems like it's all or nothing, which is not really very clever at
all.
> > > What we need is a "hide unavailable shares = true/false" switch for
> > > smb.conf or something like that.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the response, Dave.
> > >
> > > Any Samba programmers out there listening, or other wizards?
> > >
> > > Julian.
> > >
> > > At 07:56 AM 12/14/01 -0600, Dave Sherman replied:
> > > >On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 22:14, Julian Opificius wrote:
> > > > > With dexterous use of chmod and the smbpasswd file I can control
> > access to
> > > > > various shares, but how do I prevent shares from even appearing
for
> > logins
> > > > > who are not permitted to access them? I'd rather those shares not
> even
> > > > > appear, so as to provide a simplified interface to some users
> (i.e. my
> > > > kids).
> > > >
> > > >If I remember correctly, under a share definition just add:
> > > > browseable = no
> > > >This will make it invisible, but you can still map a network drive to
> > > >it. However, this makes it invisible to everyone, not just selected
> > > >users.
> > > >
> > > >I would seggest 

Re: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Julian Opificius]

Just like "browseable = no", right?
No, I want the share to show up or not show up as a function of it's 
accessibility by the current login - i.e. login-dependant, rather than 
definition-dependant.

Thanks all the same.

Julian.
===
At 11:55 AM 12/14/01 -0600, you wrote:
>This probabally isn't what you want, but if you end a SMB share name with 
>a '$' it will not show up in browse lists but will still be accessable 
>(assuming you have rights to the share and the underlying files of course.)
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Julian Opificius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:44:01 -0600
>Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible
>
>Thanks for the response Dexter.
>
>No, what I'm looking for is to have shares simply not show up in the
>network directory listing if the current user is not authorized to access 
>them.
>
>I thought of it as a "duh", an obvious feature, and that I was overlooking
>the obvious, but apparently not. The more I think about it, it demonstrates
>the philosophical difference between Microsoft (the KISS principle) and
>Unix (the long rope - you either do rope tricks or hang yourself). The idea
>of iding unavailable shares for the sake of simplicity probably wouldn't
>occur to a Unix/Linux programmer. Not that it's wrong, just different.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>Julian.
>=
>At 09:11 AM 12/14/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hello:
> >
> >Have you tried the veto files command?  I have not used it, but the book I
> >have has a description for it, which you might find helpful:
> >
> >veto files:  Contains a list of file and directory names that are marked
> >by Samba as not visible and cannot be accessed by users.  Entires in the
> >list are separated by the / character, and the ? and * wildcard characters
> >can be used.  For example, to veto access to Windows executables files on
> >a file share use veto files = /*.exe/*.com/*.bat/.  If the case-sensitive
> >parameter is false, Samba will veto files regard to case.
> >
> >Hopefully, this command can help you solve your problem.  Good luck...
> >
> >Dexter
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Julian Opificius wrote:
> >
> > > I've pored over man on the Samba web-site, and yes, you remember
> > correctly ;-)
> > >
> > > It's true that though "browseable = no" hides a share from everyone, you
> > > can still map to it, but then how does one know it's there? That's 
> cryptic
> > > and unreasonably clumsy for non-expert users (which includes me), who 
> have
> > > other things to remember, like where we've put the car keys.
> > >
> > > Seems like it's all or nothing, which is not really very clever at all.
> > > What we need is a "hide unavailable shares = true/false" switch for
> > > smb.conf or something like that.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the response, Dave.
> > >
> > > Any Samba programmers out there listening, or other wizards?
> > >
> > > Julian.
> > >
> > > At 07:56 AM 12/14/01 -0600, Dave Sherman replied:
> > > >On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 22:14, Julian Opificius wrote:
> > > > > With dexterous use of chmod and the smbpasswd file I can control
> > access to
> > > > > various shares, but how do I prevent shares from even appearing for
> > logins
> > > > > who are not permitted to access them? I'd rather those shares not 
> even
> > > > > appear, so as to provide a simplified interface to some users 
> (i.e. my
> > > > kids).
> > > >
> > > >If I remember correctly, under a share definition just add:
> > > > browseable = no
> > > >This will make it invisible, but you can still map a network drive to
> > > >it. However, this makes it invisible to everyone, not just selected
> > > >users.
> > > >
> > > >I would seggest 'man smb.conf' for further information.
> > > >
> > > >Dave
> > > >
> > > >=
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>
>==
>Julian A. Opificius.
>802 Fawn Road, Elk River, MN 55330.
>Home: 763.441.1291, Cell: 763.360.5919
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]   ICQ: 3268206
>==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
>Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

==
Julian A. Opificius.
802 Fawn Road, Elk River, MN 55330.
Home: 763.441.1291, Cell: 763.360.5919
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   ICQ: 3268206
==





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Jim Dawson]

This probabally isn't what you want, but if you end a SMB share name with a '$' it 
will not show up in browse lists but will still be accessable (assuming you have 
rights to the share and the underlying files of course.)

-Original Message-
From: Julian Opificius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:44:01 -0600
Subject: Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

Thanks for the response Dexter.

No, what I'm looking for is to have shares simply not show up in the 
network directory listing if the current user is not authorized to access them.

I thought of it as a "duh", an obvious feature, and that I was overlooking 
the obvious, but apparently not. The more I think about it, it demonstrates 
the philosophical difference between Microsoft (the KISS principle) and 
Unix (the long rope - you either do rope tricks or hang yourself). The idea 
of iding unavailable shares for the sake of simplicity probably wouldn't 
occur to a Unix/Linux programmer. Not that it's wrong, just different.

Thanks again.

Julian.
=
At 09:11 AM 12/14/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello:
>
>Have you tried the veto files command?  I have not used it, but the book I
>have has a description for it, which you might find helpful:
>
>veto files:  Contains a list of file and directory names that are marked
>by Samba as not visible and cannot be accessed by users.  Entires in the
>list are separated by the / character, and the ? and * wildcard characters
>can be used.  For example, to veto access to Windows executables files on
>a file share use veto files = /*.exe/*.com/*.bat/.  If the case-sensitive
>parameter is false, Samba will veto files regard to case.
>
>Hopefully, this command can help you solve your problem.  Good luck...
>
>Dexter
>
>
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Julian Opificius wrote:
>
> > I've pored over man on the Samba web-site, and yes, you remember 
> correctly ;-)
> >
> > It's true that though "browseable = no" hides a share from everyone, you
> > can still map to it, but then how does one know it's there? That's cryptic
> > and unreasonably clumsy for non-expert users (which includes me), who have
> > other things to remember, like where we've put the car keys.
> >
> > Seems like it's all or nothing, which is not really very clever at all.
> > What we need is a "hide unavailable shares = true/false" switch for
> > smb.conf or something like that.
> >
> > Thanks for the response, Dave.
> >
> > Any Samba programmers out there listening, or other wizards?
> >
> > Julian.
> >
> > At 07:56 AM 12/14/01 -0600, Dave Sherman replied:
> > >On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 22:14, Julian Opificius wrote:
> > > > With dexterous use of chmod and the smbpasswd file I can control 
> access to
> > > > various shares, but how do I prevent shares from even appearing for 
> logins
> > > > who are not permitted to access them? I'd rather those shares not even
> > > > appear, so as to provide a simplified interface to some users (i.e. my
> > > kids).
> > >
> > >If I remember correctly, under a share definition just add:
> > > browseable = no
> > >This will make it invisible, but you can still map a network drive to
> > >it. However, this makes it invisible to everyone, not just selected
> > >users.
> > >
> > >I would seggest 'man smb.conf' for further information.
> > >
> > >Dave
> > >
> > >=
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
>Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

==
Julian A. Opificius.
802 Fawn Road, Elk River, MN 55330.
Home: 763.441.1291, Cell: 763.360.5919
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   ICQ: 3268206
==








Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Julian Opificius]

Thanks for the response Dexter.

No, what I'm looking for is to have shares simply not show up in the 
network directory listing if the current user is not authorized to access them.

I thought of it as a "duh", an obvious feature, and that I was overlooking 
the obvious, but apparently not. The more I think about it, it demonstrates 
the philosophical difference between Microsoft (the KISS principle) and 
Unix (the long rope - you either do rope tricks or hang yourself). The idea 
of iding unavailable shares for the sake of simplicity probably wouldn't 
occur to a Unix/Linux programmer. Not that it's wrong, just different.

Thanks again.

Julian.
=
At 09:11 AM 12/14/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello:
>
>Have you tried the veto files command?  I have not used it, but the book I
>have has a description for it, which you might find helpful:
>
>veto files:  Contains a list of file and directory names that are marked
>by Samba as not visible and cannot be accessed by users.  Entires in the
>list are separated by the / character, and the ? and * wildcard characters
>can be used.  For example, to veto access to Windows executables files on
>a file share use veto files = /*.exe/*.com/*.bat/.  If the case-sensitive
>parameter is false, Samba will veto files regard to case.
>
>Hopefully, this command can help you solve your problem.  Good luck...
>
>Dexter
>
>
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Julian Opificius wrote:
>
> > I've pored over man on the Samba web-site, and yes, you remember 
> correctly ;-)
> >
> > It's true that though "browseable = no" hides a share from everyone, you
> > can still map to it, but then how does one know it's there? That's cryptic
> > and unreasonably clumsy for non-expert users (which includes me), who have
> > other things to remember, like where we've put the car keys.
> >
> > Seems like it's all or nothing, which is not really very clever at all.
> > What we need is a "hide unavailable shares = true/false" switch for
> > smb.conf or something like that.
> >
> > Thanks for the response, Dave.
> >
> > Any Samba programmers out there listening, or other wizards?
> >
> > Julian.
> >
> > At 07:56 AM 12/14/01 -0600, Dave Sherman replied:
> > >On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 22:14, Julian Opificius wrote:
> > > > With dexterous use of chmod and the smbpasswd file I can control 
> access to
> > > > various shares, but how do I prevent shares from even appearing for 
> logins
> > > > who are not permitted to access them? I'd rather those shares not even
> > > > appear, so as to provide a simplified interface to some users (i.e. my
> > > kids).
> > >
> > >If I remember correctly, under a share definition just add:
> > > browseable = no
> > >This will make it invisible, but you can still map a network drive to
> > >it. However, this makes it invisible to everyone, not just selected
> > >users.
> > >
> > >I would seggest 'man smb.conf' for further information.
> > >
> > >Dave
> > >
> > >=
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
>Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

==
Julian A. Opificius.
802 Fawn Road, Elk River, MN 55330.
Home: 763.441.1291, Cell: 763.360.5919
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   ICQ: 3268206
==





Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Admin]

Hello:

Have you tried the veto files command?  I have not used it, but the book I
have has a description for it, which you might find helpful:

veto files:  Contains a list of file and directory names that are marked
by Samba as not visible and cannot be accessed by users.  Entires in the
list are separated by the / character, and the ? and * wildcard characters
can be used.  For example, to veto access to Windows executables files on
a file share use veto files = /*.exe/*.com/*.bat/.  If the case-sensitive
parameter is false, Samba will veto files regard to case.

Hopefully, this command can help you solve your problem.  Good luck...

Dexter


On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Julian Opificius wrote:

> I've pored over man on the Samba web-site, and yes, you remember correctly ;-)
>
> It's true that though "browseable = no" hides a share from everyone, you
> can still map to it, but then how does one know it's there? That's cryptic
> and unreasonably clumsy for non-expert users (which includes me), who have
> other things to remember, like where we've put the car keys.
>
> Seems like it's all or nothing, which is not really very clever at all.
> What we need is a "hide unavailable shares = true/false" switch for
> smb.conf or something like that.
>
> Thanks for the response, Dave.
>
> Any Samba programmers out there listening, or other wizards?
>
> Julian.
>
> At 07:56 AM 12/14/01 -0600, Dave Sherman replied:
> >On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 22:14, Julian Opificius wrote:
> > > With dexterous use of chmod and the smbpasswd file I can control access to
> > > various shares, but how do I prevent shares from even appearing for logins
> > > who are not permitted to access them? I'd rather those shares not even
> > > appear, so as to provide a simplified interface to some users (i.e. my
> > kids).
> >
> >If I remember correctly, under a share definition just add:
> > browseable = no
> >This will make it invisible, but you can still map a network drive to
> >it. However, this makes it invisible to everyone, not just selected
> >users.
> >
> >I would seggest 'man smb.conf' for further information.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >=
>
>
>




Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [newbie] Samba question - making shares invisible

[Dave Sherman]

On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 22:14, Julian Opificius wrote:
> With dexterous use of chmod and the smbpasswd file I can control access to 
> various shares, but how do I prevent shares from even appearing for logins 
> who are not permitted to access them? I'd rather those shares not even 
> appear, so as to provide a simplified interface to some users (i.e. my kids).

If I remember correctly, under a share definition just add:
browseable = no
This will make it invisible, but you can still map a network drive to
it. However, this makes it invisible to everyone, not just selected
users.

I would seggest 'man smb.conf' for further information.

Dave

-- 
-- Male cadavers are incapable of yielding testimony.
-- Individuals who make their abode in vitreous edifices would be well
advised
to refrain from catapulting projectiles.
-- Neophyte's serendipity.
-- Exclusive dedication to necessitious chores without interludes of
hedonistic
diversion renders John a hebetudinous fellow.
-- A revolving concretion of earthy or mineral matter accumulates no
congeries
of small, green bryophytic plant.
-- Abstention from any aleatory undertaking precludes a potential
escallation
of a lucrative nature.
-- Missiles of ligneous or osteal consistency have the potential of
fracturing
osseous structure, but appellations will eternally remain innocuous.




Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com