f



Still can't network Linux and Windows

Still trying crack the Linux-Windows SMB networking nut and it's driving 
me nuts:

So far,  I can:
	- ping both the Windows (XP Pro, Sp2) and Linux (CentOS 4.3, RHEL4 
clone) by both hostname and network address, so no issues with basic 
networking.

	- access the Windows shares and print to the Windows printer on the 
Linux box, so SMB (Samba) is working on the Linux side.

	- view both the Windows and Linux hosts in the "View Network Computers" 
boxes on the XP box, so the Windows box can "see" the Linux box.

However,  when I try to access the Linux shares on the Windows box,  I 
get the following message:

> \\Host4 is not accessible.  You might not have permission to use this network resource.  Contact the administrator of
  this server to find out if you have access permissions.
> 
>     The network path was not found.

I know a major issue in networking Linux and Windows computers via SMB 
is the fact that Windows encrypts passwords while Linux does not. 
However, I believe I'm dealing with that in my smb.conf as given below:

> [global]
> 	workgroup = coryell
> 	server string = CentOS 4.3
> 	hosts deny = ALL
> 	interfaces = eth0 l0
> 	hosts allow = 127.0.0.1, 192.168.0.4, 192.168.0.1, 192.168.0.3
> 
> 	printcap name = /etc/printcap
> 	load printers = yes
> 	printing = cups
> 	cups options = raw
> 
> 	log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log
> 	max log size = 50
> 
>         encrypt passwords = yes
>         smb passwd file = /etc/samba/smbpasswd
> 
> 	password level = 8
> 	username level = 8
> 
> 	username map = /etc/samba/smbusers
> 
> 	socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
> 
> 	remote announce = 192.168.0
> 	os level = 75
> 
> 	idmap uid = 16777216 - 33554431
> 	idmap gid = 16777216 - 33554431
> 	template shell = /bin/false
> 	password server = None
> 	winbind use default domain = no
> 
> [homes]
> 	comment = Home Directories
> 	browseable = yes
> 	writeable = yes
> [home]
> 	path = /home
> 	writeable = yes
> 	browseable = yes
> 	guest ok = yes

Any clues?




	
0
Bruce
5/21/2006 2:49:52 PM
comp.protocols.smb 1481 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

28 Replies
760 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 40

All sorts of weird stuff there that I would never put in a smb.conf,
but whatever.  Do you have the user-account you are trying to connect
with in /etc/samba/smbpasswd?  Look up the 'smbpasswd' command (man
smbpasswd), in particular smbpasswd -a.

'password level' is (?) unnecessary with encryption turned on
'username level' is something you probably do not need, maybe the idmap
stuff as well.

In the utterly improbably case that this does not work,
http://home.arcor.de/36bit/samba.html#4.13 should ;-)

0
Vlad_Inhaler
5/21/2006 7:34:54 PM
On Sun, 21 May 2006 10:49:52 -0400, in comp.protocols.smb , Bruce
Coryell <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote:

>Still trying crack the Linux-Windows SMB networking nut and it's driving 
>me nuts:
>
>So far,  I can:
>	- ping both the Windows (XP Pro, Sp2) and Linux (CentOS 4.3, RHEL4 
>clone) by both hostname and network address, so no issues with basic 
>networking.
>
>	- access the Windows shares and print to the Windows printer on the 
>Linux box, so SMB (Samba) is working on the Linux side.
>
>	- view both the Windows and Linux hosts in the "View Network Computers" 
>boxes on the XP box, so the Windows box can "see" the Linux box.
>
>However,  when I try to access the Linux shares on the Windows box,  I 
>get the following message:
>
>> \\Host4 is not accessible.  You might not have permission to use this network resource.  Contact the administrator of
>  this server to find out if you have access permissions.

I discovered that my Samba box wouldn't share anything out unless I
had a /tmp share. When I added that back in (naturally I'd deleted it
from the default smb.conf...) everything started working. No idea why.
>I know a major issue in networking Linux and Windows computers via
SMB 
>is the fact that Windows encrypts passwords while Linux does not. 

Nah. thats not an issue. 

-- 
Mark McIntyre
0
Mark
5/21/2006 10:16:01 PM
On Sun, 21 May 2006 10:49:52 -0400, Bruce Coryell wrote:

> Still trying crack the Linux-Windows SMB networking nut and it's driving 
> me nuts:
> 
> So far,  I can:
> 	- ping both the Windows (XP Pro, Sp2) and Linux (CentOS 4.3, RHEL4 
> clone) by both hostname and network address, so no issues with basic 
> networking.
> 
> 	- access the Windows shares and print to the Windows printer on the 
> Linux box, so SMB (Samba) is working on the Linux side.
> 
> 	- view both the Windows and Linux hosts in the "View Network Computers" 
> boxes on the XP box, so the Windows box can "see" the Linux box.
> 
> However,  when I try to access the Linux shares on the Windows box,  I 
> get the following message:
> 
>> \\Host4 is not accessible.  You might not have permission to use this network resource.  Contact the administrator of
>   this server to find out if you have access permissions.
>> 
>>     The network path was not found.
> 
> I know a major issue in networking Linux and Windows computers via SMB 
> is the fact that Windows encrypts passwords while Linux does not. 
> However, I believe I'm dealing with that in my smb.conf as given below:
> 

FWIW - there is a Samba Howto (at www.tldp.org) which is good for getting
things going. Also, the entire contents of the O'Reilly Samba book is
available free online from O'Reilly.

0
ray
5/22/2006 1:49:46 AM
ray wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 10:49:52 -0400, Bruce Coryell wrote:
>
>> Still trying crack the Linux-Windows SMB networking nut and it's
>> driving me nuts:
>>
>> So far,  I can:
>> - ping both the Windows (XP Pro, Sp2) and Linux (CentOS 4.3, RHEL4
>> clone) by both hostname and network address, so no issues with basic
>> networking.
>>
>> - access the Windows shares and print to the Windows printer on the
>> Linux box, so SMB (Samba) is working on the Linux side.
>>
>> - view both the Windows and Linux hosts in the "View Network
>> Computers" boxes on the XP box, so the Windows box can "see" the
>> Linux box.
>>
>> However,  when I try to access the Linux shares on the Windows box,
>> I get the following message:
>>
>>> \\Host4 is not accessible.  You might not have permission to use
>>> this network resource.  Contact the administrator of
>>   this server to find out if you have access permissions.
>>>
>>>     The network path was not found.
>>
>> I know a major issue in networking Linux and Windows computers via
>> SMB is the fact that Windows encrypts passwords while Linux does not.
>> However, I believe I'm dealing with that in my smb.conf as given
>> below:
>>
>
> FWIW - there is a Samba Howto (at www.tldp.org) which is good for
> getting things going. Also, the entire contents of the O'Reilly Samba
> book is available free online from O'Reilly.

The claim is nonsense. Samba supports the older protocols for Win9x, which 
by default *did not* encrypt passwords, but has supported the better 
technologies almost since Microsoft started using them. The general weakness 
of SMB passwords is merely reveealed by Samba, not created by it.

Newer techniques such Active Directory's use of an LDAP or even Kerberos 
back-end is also well supported, even better-supported by Samba, because 
Linux/UNIX based Kerberos didn't deliberately break themselves the way 
Microsoft did to disable non-Windows clients. None of that encourages or 
forces the use of unencrypted passwords.

The Samba documentation, especailly the troubleshooting.html file, are 
wonderful for getting things working. 


0
Nico
5/22/2006 1:12:13 PM
Just a couple of words on Encryption.

All Windows versions starting with Win95B have password encryption
turned on by default.  The original Win95 needed a patch for that.  I
once saw a posting claiming even WfWg 3.11 would support encryption if
it was turned on but have no idea of the veracity of *that* statement
;-)

Samba 1.x versions had encryption turned off by default (this is from
memory), Samba 2.x versions have it turned on by default.  Having it
turned on means that non-encrypted passwords are rejected.  The default
was configurable in both cases although I cannot imagine anyone turning
it off nowadays.

I think the Win95-98-ME line had a different encryption scheme to
NT-2K-XP, although both versions (and Samba) can interact with both
schemes.  That is why each line in the smbpasswd file contains two
separate passwords.  The Win95-98-ME encryption is a lot weaker than
the other.

I can't remember when Samba first allowed encryption but it was before
1.9.18p8 which is when I got started.  This was some time around 1996.

0
Vlad_Inhaler
5/23/2006 5:50:44 PM

I think I finally cracked this nut.  The fix was to go into WinXP's 
registry and make a tweak, as follows:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Netlogon\Parameters

Double click on the Requiressignorseal parameter and change dword to 
00000000 from its default of 1.

Once I did that, I could share files effortlessly back and forth between 
the Windows and Linux boxes.

On RedHat-type distros (I use both CentOS and FC 5), documentation for 
this can be seen in /usr/share/doc/samba-*/docs/registry and this 
contains registry tweaks for various versions of Windows including XP.

* is a string corresponding to the version of Samba you have.


0
Bruce
5/24/2006 10:58:09 AM
"Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message 
news:44707ddd$0$3681$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...

> \\Host4 is not accessible.  You might not have permission to use this 
> network resource.  Contact the administrator of this server to find out if 
> you have access permissions.

My laptop was working just fine on my home network then all of a sudden I
started to get the above messages. It seems the problem is all with Windows
screwing up. I found the following info that may help you. Also don't forget
that the browse list may take up to 5 to 10 minutes to show up on a newly
connected/booted Windows computer.

http://www.tomsnetworking.com/2004/01/06/how_to_xp_share_fix/index.html

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=299357

-- 
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO


0
Leland
5/25/2006 3:08:48 AM
Leland C. Scott wrote:
> "Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message 
> news:44707ddd$0$3681$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...
> 
> 
>>\\Host4 is not accessible.  You might not have permission to use this 
>>network resource.  Contact the administrator of this server to find out if 
>>you have access permissions.
> 
> 
> My laptop was working just fine on my home network then all of a sudden I
> started to get the above messages. It seems the problem is all with Windows
> screwing up. I found the following info that may help you. Also don't forget
> that the browse list may take up to 5 to 10 minutes to show up on a newly
> connected/booted Windows computer.
> 
> http://www.tomsnetworking.com/2004/01/06/how_to_xp_share_fix/index.html
> 
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=299357
> 
See the post I wrote at 6:58 am, yesterday, below...

Also had to tweak the firewall settings on the Linux box.
0
Bruce
5/25/2006 10:25:43 AM
That is rather surprising (at least to me) - that setting allows XP
clients to join a Samba *Domain* server and you do not appear to have
the settings for a Domain Server.  Whatever, apparently a Domain Server
is the way to go for larger networks.

0
Vlad_Inhaler
5/25/2006 10:34:46 AM
Vlad_Inhaler wrote:
> That is rather surprising (at least to me) - that setting allows XP
> clients to join a Samba *Domain* server and you do not appear to have
> the settings for a Domain Server.  Whatever, apparently a Domain Server
> is the way to go for larger networks.
> 

No, my intention is to run it as a workgroup, not domain, but this did 
the trick.

However, now I'm seeing that I can't write to the Linux shares from the 
Windows box, can only read them, and just changing the Linux permissions 
(via chmod) does NOT solve this...the saga is not over yet!
0
Bruce
5/25/2006 11:01:57 AM
Bruce Coryell <bcoryell@chesco.com> writes in comp.protocols.smb:

> I think I finally cracked this nut.  The fix was to go into WinXP's
> registry and make a tweak, as follows:
> 
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Netlogon\Parameters
> 
> Double click on the Requiressignorseal parameter and change dword to
> 00000000 from its default of 1.
> 
> Once I did that, I could share files effortlessly back and forth
> between the Windows and Linux boxes.
> 
> On RedHat-type distros (I use both CentOS and FC 5), documentation for
> this can be seen in /usr/share/doc/samba-*/docs/registry and this
> contains registry tweaks for various versions of Windows including XP.
> 
> * is a string corresponding to the version of Samba you have.

What samba version is used?

My understanding (from various mailing list archives) is that on samba 3 that 
Requiressignorseal is not needed.


0
Kari
5/25/2006 12:08:18 PM
Bruce,

The real problem for me was the NetBIOS name resolution was not occurring.
My laptop got mucked up after connecting it to a network at a university I
was at. This apparently has happened to other people connecting their
computers up to 'foreign networks'. Seems their DHCP server caused some
changes to be made in the way NetBIOS names get resolved to IP addresses.
This was due to a few registry keys that got changed.

Normally on a small home network a network broadcast is made on the local
subnet requesting the IP address of the machine with a given name. All
machines get the message and only the one matching the machine name returns
it's IP address. This is like the classic ARP protocol.

In my case the protocol was changed to a point-to-point method. In other
words the inquiring machines send their request to the network WINS server,
sort of like a DNS lookup. However if there isn't one, the usual case on
home networks, there isn't one to send a reply so the name look up fails.
Thus you can't browse the local network and the machines don't show up in
network neighborhood. You should still be able to connect by doing a
computer look up using the dotted IP address.

Which method to use is specified by a 'node type'. Apparently you can
change the node type that Windows uses to do both. Depending on what value
you use either the broadcast is done first or the WINS server request is
done first. If no response is received then the second method is used.

I had to modify a few registry key settings, specifically 'dhcpnodetype'.
This will override the value used for 'nodetype' if it is in the registry.
If neither one is there then Windows uses the broadcast method as a default.
Make sure you find ALL of the keys and change them! See the URL's below.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=903267 (Problem description and fix)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/160177/ (Node types)

Hope this helps and explains why the key setting has to be changed. If you
use a laptop at home and on the road you're likely to run in to this problem
again. I spent the better part of 3 days trying to find out what happened
and how to fix it. I'm really surprised that Micro$oft doesn't configure the
system to do both by default when you install the OS. That would really save
a lot of needless trouble fixing stupid problems like this, I got better
things to do.

-- 
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message 
news:447585f3$0$3688$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...
> Leland C. Scott wrote:
>> "Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message 
>> news:44707ddd$0$3681$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...
>>
>>
>>>\\Host4 is not accessible.  You might not have permission to use this 
>>>network resource.  Contact the administrator of this server to find out 
>>>if you have access permissions.
>>
>>
>> My laptop was working just fine on my home network then all of a sudden I
>> started to get the above messages. It seems the problem is all with 
>> Windows
>> screwing up. I found the following info that may help you. Also don't 
>> forget
>> that the browse list may take up to 5 to 10 minutes to show up on a newly
>> connected/booted Windows computer.
>>
>> http://www.tomsnetworking.com/2004/01/06/how_to_xp_share_fix/index.html
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=299357
>>
> See the post I wrote at 6:58 am, yesterday, below...
>
> Also had to tweak the firewall settings on the Linux box. 


0
LeIand
5/26/2006 7:23:44 AM
"Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message 
news:44758e70$0$3695$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...
> Vlad_Inhaler wrote:
>> That is rather surprising (at least to me) - that setting allows XP
>> clients to join a Samba *Domain* server and you do not appear to have
>> the settings for a Domain Server.  Whatever, apparently a Domain Server
>> is the way to go for larger networks.
>>
>
> No, my intention is to run it as a workgroup, not domain, but this did the 
> trick.
>
> However, now I'm seeing that I can't write to the Linux shares from the 
> Windows box, can only read them, and just changing the Linux permissions 
> (via chmod) does NOT solve this...the saga is not over yet!

I thought that chmod only changes the file permissions for users logged 
directly in to the machine. File and printer sharing has to be setup using 
Samba if you want access using that method. Samba has it's own permissions 
you have to setup independent of the OS. On my system, FC3, I had to set the 
share to 'writable' and made it 'visible.  I used the Samba GUI widget in 
Gnome to set things up. If you need to setup quotas you have to either use 
Swat and or the command line to configure it if I remember reading that 
right.


-- 
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO 


0
LeIand
5/26/2006 7:44:38 AM
ok, two points here.

1 - If you are coming in as user xyz them user xyz needs update
permissions to be able to write.  This applies at the file level and at
the directory level.
2 - Bruce - you need to find out what is wrong rather than poking
things at random.
     Set 'debug level = 2' and start looking at the appropriate logs.
It is possible that you have told Samba not to allow updates here, it
is also possible that this is a problem with Unix permissions.

btw, I seem to remember that config changes take effect a few seconds
later so you do not need to always stop and restart Samba.

0
Vlad_Inhaler
5/26/2006 9:35:09 AM
"LeIand C. Scott" <kc8ldo@arrl.net> writes in comp.protocols.smb:

> "Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message 
> news:44758e70$0$3695$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...
> > Vlad_Inhaler wrote:
> >> That is rather surprising (at least to me) - that setting allows XP
> >> clients to join a Samba *Domain* server and you do not appear to have
> >> the settings for a Domain Server.  Whatever, apparently a Domain Server
> >> is the way to go for larger networks.
> >>
> >
> > No, my intention is to run it as a workgroup, not domain, but this did the 
> > trick.
> >
> > However, now I'm seeing that I can't write to the Linux shares from the 
> > Windows box, can only read them, and just changing the Linux permissions 
> > (via chmod) does NOT solve this...the saga is not over yet!
> 
> I thought that chmod only changes the file permissions for users logged 
> directly in to the machine. File and printer sharing has to be setup using 
> Samba if you want access using that method. Samba has it's own permissions 
> you have to setup independent of the OS. On my system, FC3, I had to set the 
  =======================================

No.   
        http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/AccessControls.html#id2579902
quote:

| All access to UNIX/Linux system files via Samba is controlled by the 
| operating system file access controls. When trying to figure out file 
| access problems, it is vitally important to find the identity of the Windows 
| user as it is presented by Samba at the point of file access. This can best 
| be determined from the Samba log files. 

0
Kari
5/26/2006 10:18:24 AM
LeIand C. Scott wrote:
> "Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message 
> news:44758e70$0$3695$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...
> 
>>Vlad_Inhaler wrote:
>>
>>>That is rather surprising (at least to me) - that setting allows XP
>>>clients to join a Samba *Domain* server and you do not appear to have
>>>the settings for a Domain Server.  Whatever, apparently a Domain Server
>>>is the way to go for larger networks.
>>>
>>
>>No, my intention is to run it as a workgroup, not domain, but this did the 
>>trick.
>>
>>However, now I'm seeing that I can't write to the Linux shares from the 
>>Windows box, can only read them, and just changing the Linux permissions 
>>(via chmod) does NOT solve this...the saga is not over yet!
> 
> 
> I thought that chmod only changes the file permissions for users logged 
> directly in to the machine. File and printer sharing has to be setup using 
> Samba if you want access using that method. Samba has it's own permissions 
> you have to setup independent of the OS. On my system, FC3, I had to set the 
> share to 'writable' and made it 'visible.  I used the Samba GUI widget in 
> Gnome to set things up. If you need to setup quotas you have to either use 
> Swat and or the command line to configure it if I remember reading that 
> right.
> 
> 

I have the shares as 'writeable' and 'browseable'.  My Windows box can 
see the shares and read them, so the 'browseable' part is working, but I 
have a problem with the 'writeable' part.  I think this is a deep issue 
with file ownerships and permissions in Linux that is causing this.

Another thing to throw out:  One of the Linux shares is a FAT32 (vfat) 
partition, and Windows CAN write to that over the network connection. 
It's just the Linux partitions (ext3) that it can't write to.

I have all shares set to 777 (rwxrwxrwx) so that should take care of the 
permissions issue.  In /etc/fstab the drive partitions are set to 
'defaults' do changes need to be made here?  (The vfat partition is set 
to 'user,rw, umask=0' but Windows-type partitions don't have 
permissions, the umask settimg is a hack to make them work in Linux)
0
Bruce
5/26/2006 10:56:34 AM
"Kari Hurtta" <hurtta@attruh.keh.iki.fi> wrote in message 
news:5dk689ccnj.fsf@attruh.keh.iki.fi...
> "LeIand C. Scott" <kc8ldo@arrl.net> writes in comp.protocols.smb:
>
>> "Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message
>> news:44758e70$0$3695$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...
>> > Vlad_Inhaler wrote:
>> >> That is rather surprising (at least to me) - that setting allows XP
>> >> clients to join a Samba *Domain* server and you do not appear to have
>> >> the settings for a Domain Server.  Whatever, apparently a Domain 
>> >> Server
>> >> is the way to go for larger networks.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, my intention is to run it as a workgroup, not domain, but this did 
>> > the
>> > trick.
>> >
>> > However, now I'm seeing that I can't write to the Linux shares from the
>> > Windows box, can only read them, and just changing the Linux 
>> > permissions
>> > (via chmod) does NOT solve this...the saga is not over yet!
>>
>> I thought that chmod only changes the file permissions for users logged
>> directly in to the machine. File and printer sharing has to be setup 
>> using
>> Samba if you want access using that method. Samba has it's own 
>> permissions
>> you have to setup independent of the OS. On my system, FC3, I had to set 
>> the
>  =======================================
>
> No.
> 
> http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/AccessControls.html#id2579902
> quote:
>
> | All access to UNIX/Linux system files via Samba is controlled by the
> | operating system file access controls. When trying to figure out file
> | access problems, it is vitally important to find the identity of the 
> Windows
> | user as it is presented by Samba at the point of file access. This can 
> best
> | be determined from the Samba log files.

So it is possible to have r-w-e permissions for local users on the machine 
but when using Samba those same files can be read-only even if it's the same 
user. That seems to be what I found when I set up my system. I do understand 
the OS permissions always take precedence over anything that is setup by 
Samba. So if the Samba user needs to have write permission then at least the 
user account on the system has to let the user have the same rights for 
those files. I found that out by copying some files, with root ownership 
only, over to a regular user account to look at one point. I found that I 
couldn't erase the files later using file sharing under Samba. I am still 
new to the Linux system, I'm learning things everyday, so if I got something 
wrong here I would like to know since it could be useful later. Constructive 
comments are always welcomed.

-- 
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO 


0
LeIand
5/26/2006 7:19:05 PM
"Kari Hurtta" <hurtta@attruh.keh.iki.fi> wrote in message 
news:5dk689ccnj.fsf@attruh.keh.iki.fi...
> "LeIand C. Scott" <kc8ldo@arrl.net> writes in comp.protocols.smb:
>
>> "Bruce Coryell" <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote in message
>> news:44758e70$0$3695$1e6826b@news.chesco.com...
>> > Vlad_Inhaler wrote:
>> >> That is rather surprising (at least to me) - that setting allows XP
>> >> clients to join a Samba *Domain* server and you do not appear to have
>> >> the settings for a Domain Server.  Whatever, apparently a Domain 
>> >> Server
>> >> is the way to go for larger networks.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, my intention is to run it as a workgroup, not domain, but this did 
>> > the
>> > trick.
>> >
>> > However, now I'm seeing that I can't write to the Linux shares from the
>> > Windows box, can only read them, and just changing the Linux 
>> > permissions
>> > (via chmod) does NOT solve this...the saga is not over yet!
>>
>> I thought that chmod only changes the file permissions for users logged
>> directly in to the machine. File and printer sharing has to be setup 
>> using
>> Samba if you want access using that method. Samba has it's own 
>> permissions
>> you have to setup independent of the OS. On my system, FC3, I had to set 
>> the
>  =======================================
>
> No.
> 
> http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/AccessControls.html#id2579902
> quote:
>
> | All access to UNIX/Linux system files via Samba is controlled by the
> | operating system file access controls. When trying to figure out file
> | access problems, it is vitally important to find the identity of the 
> Windows
> | user as it is presented by Samba at the point of file access. This can 
> best
> | be determined from the Samba log files.
>

So it is possible to have r-w-e permissions for local users on the machine
but when using Samba those same files can be read-only even if it's the same
user. That seems to be what I found when I set up my system. I do understand
the OS permissions always take precedence over anything that is setup by
Samba. So if the Samba user needs to have write permission then at least the
user account on the system has to let the user have the same rights for
those files. I found that out by copying some files, with root ownership
only, over to a regular user account to look at one point. I found that I
couldn't erase the files later using file sharing under Samba. I am still
new to the Linux system, I'm learning things everyday, so if I got something
wrong here I would like to know since it could be useful later. Constructive
comments are always welcomed.

-- 
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO



0
LeIand
5/27/2006 3:42:52 AM
"LeIand C. Scott" <kc8ldo@arrl.net> writes:

> "Kari Hurtta" <hurtta@attruh.keh.iki.fi> wrote in message 
> news:5dk689ccnj.fsf@attruh.keh.iki.fi...
> > "LeIand C. Scott" <kc8ldo@arrl.net> writes in comp.protocols.smb:
> >

> >> > However, now I'm seeing that I can't write to the Linux shares from the
> >> > Windows box, can only read them, and just changing the Linux 
> >> > permissions
> >> > (via chmod) does NOT solve this...the saga is not over yet!

Default for share (on smb.conf) is probably
        writable = no

( 'writable' 'writeable' 'read only'  are if I remeber correctly
  esentially same option ('read only' is just negated.) )


> >> I thought that chmod only changes the file permissions for users logged
> >> directly in to the machine. File and printer sharing has to be setup 
> >> using
> >> Samba if you want access using that method. Samba has it's own 
> >> permissions
> >> you have to setup independent of the OS. On my system, FC3, I had to set 
> >> the
> >  =======================================
> >
> > No.
> > 
> > http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/AccessControls.html#id2579902
> > quote:
> >
> > | All access to UNIX/Linux system files via Samba is controlled by the
> > | operating system file access controls. When trying to figure out file
> > | access problems, it is vitally important to find the identity of the 
> > Windows
> > | user as it is presented by Samba at the point of file access. This can 
> > best
> > | be determined from the Samba log files.
> 
> So it is possible to have r-w-e permissions for local users on the machine 
> but when using Samba those same files can be read-only even if it's the same 
> user. That seems to be what I found when I set up my system. I do understand 
> the OS permissions always take precedence over anything that is setup by 
> Samba. So if the Samba user needs to have write permission then at least the 
> user account on the system has to let the user have the same rights for 
> those files. I found that out by copying some files, with root ownership 
> only, over to a regular user account to look at one point. I found that I 
> couldn't erase the files later using file sharing under Samba. I am still 
> new to the Linux system, I'm learning things everyday, so if I got something 
> wrong here I would like to know since it could be useful later. Constructive 
> comments are always welcomed.

Discussed on

http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/AccessControls.html


There seems to be quite lot of strange things what samba does (and not
just doing it and let OS do permission checks.)

0
Kari
5/27/2006 9:02:39 AM
Kari,

Thanks for the link.

-- 
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"Kari Hurtta" <hurtta@attruh.keh.iki.fi> wrote in message 
news:5d64jrdemo.fsf@attruh.keh.iki.fi...
> Discussed on
>
> http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/AccessControls.html
>
>
> There seems to be quite lot of strange things what samba does (and not
> just doing it and let OS do permission checks.)


0
LeIand
5/29/2006 2:27:22 AM
Well, guys, I gave up trying to use Samba (SMB) to bring Linux shares 
into a Windows box.  Just too many glitches, inconsistency and 
frustration.  Samba does work well in the other direction, bringing 
Windows shares into Linux, so I am still using Samba for that.

To bring Linux shares into Windows and then map network drives to those 
shares, I turned to NFS.  I had a Windows Services for Unix (SFU) disc 
sitting around and this includes support for an NFS client for Win XP. 
I loaded that in, configured the NFS server in Linux, and the NFS 
network in XP picked them right up, with no surprises.  Mapped them 
right into network drives in Windows Explorer and they worked like a 
champ.  Now I feel like a complete idiot having wasted all that time 
with Samba when I could have this thing working weeks ago.

This whole scenario is just like two years ago when I spent an 
inordinate amount of time and frustration trying to get a
Windows software modem to work in Linux - just didn't happen.  Junked 
the winmodem, put in a hardware modem (Lucent Venus), problem 
disappears, poof! just like that!!   I guess some things are just not 
meant to be in Linux and, in my experience,  two of them are successful 
networking with Samba and using winmodems.
0
Bruce
5/29/2006 2:46:43 AM
Bruce Coryell wrote:
> Well, guys, I gave up trying to use Samba (SMB) to bring Linux shares
> into a Windows box.  Just too many glitches, inconsistency and
> frustration.  Samba does work well in the other direction, bringing
> Windows shares into Linux, so I am still using Samba for that.
> 
> To bring Linux shares into Windows and then map network drives to those
> shares, I turned to NFS.  I had a Windows Services for Unix (SFU) disc
> sitting around and this includes support for an NFS client for Win XP. I
> loaded that in, configured the NFS server in Linux, and the NFS network
> in XP picked them right up, with no surprises.  Mapped them right into
> network drives in Windows Explorer and they worked like a champ.  Now I
> feel like a complete idiot having wasted all that time with Samba when I
> could have this thing working weeks ago.
> 
With NFS as an option, I don't know why you bothered with Samba.  As I
stated in my post two weeks ago in the previous thread you started on
this subject, NFS gives better performance and is quite simple to set up.
0
Nicholas
5/31/2006 5:45:26 PM
Nicholas Andrade wrote:
> Bruce Coryell wrote:
>> Well, guys, I gave up trying to use Samba (SMB) to bring Linux shares
>> into a Windows box.  Just too many glitches, inconsistency and
>> frustration.  Samba does work well in the other direction, bringing
>> Windows shares into Linux, so I am still using Samba for that.
>>
>> To bring Linux shares into Windows and then map network drives to
>> those shares, I turned to NFS.  I had a Windows Services for Unix
>> (SFU) disc sitting around and this includes support for an NFS
>> client for Win XP. I loaded that in, configured the NFS server in
>> Linux, and the NFS network in XP picked them right up, with no
>> surprises.  Mapped them right into network drives in Windows
>> Explorer and they worked like a champ.  Now I feel like a complete
>> idiot having wasted all that time with Samba when I could have this
>> thing working weeks ago.
>>
> With NFS as an option, I don't know why you bothered with Samba.  As I
> stated in my post two weeks ago in the previous thread you started on
> this subject, NFS gives better performance and is quite simple to set
> up.

NFS has issues: user authentication is pretty much a joke, at least for 
general machines on the network, and if clients die gracelessly they can 
confuse or even interfere with NFS access from other clients. Also, 
file-locking doesn't work very well and never has, and tunneling it through 
a firewall is an adventure in server and client configuration. 


0
Nico
5/31/2006 11:01:19 PM
Nicholas Andrade wrote:
> Bruce Coryell wrote:
> 
>>Well, guys, I gave up trying to use Samba (SMB) to bring Linux shares
>>into a Windows box.  Just too many glitches, inconsistency and
>>frustration.  Samba does work well in the other direction, bringing
>>Windows shares into Linux, so I am still using Samba for that.
>>
>>To bring Linux shares into Windows and then map network drives to those
>>shares, I turned to NFS.  I had a Windows Services for Unix (SFU) disc
>>sitting around and this includes support for an NFS client for Win XP. I
>>loaded that in, configured the NFS server in Linux, and the NFS network
>>in XP picked them right up, with no surprises.  Mapped them right into
>>network drives in Windows Explorer and they worked like a champ.  Now I
>>feel like a complete idiot having wasted all that time with Samba when I
>>could have this thing working weeks ago.
>>
> 
> With NFS as an option, I don't know why you bothered with Samba.  As I
> stated in my post two weeks ago in the previous thread you started on
> this subject, NFS gives better performance and is quite simple to set up.

Don't have NFS server software for Windows, only client.  Need server 
version of Windows to install the server.  Anyway, this setup works.
0
Bruce
6/1/2006 2:07:56 AM
Bruce Coryell wrote:
> 
> Don't have NFS server software for Windows, only client.  Need server 
> version of Windows to install the server.  Anyway, this setup works.

I'm not sure which version of SFU you're using, but 3.5 (which is free 
as in beer) includes a server. Also Cygwin offers a free NFS server [1] 
but no client.

[1] http://www.csparks.com/CygwinNFS/index.xml
0
Nicholas
6/1/2006 3:40:23 AM
Nicholas Andrade wrote:
> Bruce Coryell wrote:
> 
>>
>> Don't have NFS server software for Windows, only client.  Need server 
>> version of Windows to install the server.  Anyway, this setup works.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which version of SFU you're using, but 3.5 (which is free 
> as in beer) includes a server. Also Cygwin offers a free NFS server [1] 
> but no client.
> 
> [1] http://www.csparks.com/CygwinNFS/index.xml

Yes, the SFU disk is 3.5 and does have the NFS server.  But my Win XP 
Pro is not a server version of Windows, so I only have an option to 
install the client.  Samba is well behaved in the Windows to Linux 
direction, it was only going the other way that I could not get it to 
work.
0
Bruce
6/1/2006 10:22:15 AM
Bruce Coryell wrote:
> Nicholas Andrade wrote:
> 
>> Bruce Coryell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Don't have NFS server software for Windows, only client.  Need server
>>> version of Windows to install the server.  Anyway, this setup works.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure which version of SFU you're using, but 3.5 (which is free
>> as in beer) includes a server. Also Cygwin offers a free NFS server
>> [1] but no client.
>>
>> [1] http://www.csparks.com/CygwinNFS/index.xml
> 
> 
> Yes, the SFU disk is 3.5 and does have the NFS server.  But my Win XP
> Pro is not a server version of Windows, so I only have an option to
> install the client.  Samba is well behaved in the Windows to Linux
> direction, it was only going the other way that I could not get it to work.

That's odd, I have Windows XP Pro (definitely not 2000 or 2003 Server)
and NFS server installed fine (though I ended up going with Cygwin as I
found it simpler to configure).
0
Nicholas
6/1/2006 5:40:54 PM
Nicholas Andrade wrote:
> Bruce Coryell wrote:
> 
>>Nicholas Andrade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bruce Coryell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't have NFS server software for Windows, only client.  Need server
>>>>version of Windows to install the server.  Anyway, this setup works.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure which version of SFU you're using, but 3.5 (which is free
>>>as in beer) includes a server. Also Cygwin offers a free NFS server
>>>[1] but no client.
>>>
>>>[1] http://www.csparks.com/CygwinNFS/index.xml
>>
>>
>>Yes, the SFU disk is 3.5 and does have the NFS server.  But my Win XP
>>Pro is not a server version of Windows, so I only have an option to
>>install the client.  Samba is well behaved in the Windows to Linux
>>direction, it was only going the other way that I could not get it to work.
> 
> 
> That's odd, I have Windows XP Pro (definitely not 2000 or 2003 Server)
> and NFS server installed fine (though I ended up going with Cygwin as I
> found it simpler to configure).

The install option for NFS server was grayed out when I put the disk in 
my XP Pro box, plus somewhere I saw that a server version of Windows was 
required to install any of the server options on the disk.  Thus NFS 
client  and a couple other options were the only options I had available.
0
Bruce
6/1/2006 10:46:17 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

[News] Breaking Evil Myths: Linux Users Can't Play; Can't Run Windows Applications
Because penguins need to play too. ,----[ Quote ] | The Windows camp have a lot of great games to play and a popular | misconception is that Linux is lacking in games. That is not true. | There are literally thousands of games for Linux. In fact a lot of | them have been ported to Windows too. | | [...] | | There are both free and commercial games available. Some of the best | ones I really like are America's Army, Tremulous and Enemy Territory. `---- http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/because-penguins-need-to-play-too-14767 Run Windows Apps on Linux using 2X Applicat...

Linux victim can't take it anymore: concedes Windows is most appropriate if you don't want to fight your Linux crapware
"I used to recommend Linux to novice computers users like my parents. After having to solve too many broken updates with Ubuntu I had to finally concede that Windows is the most appropriate environment for a user that doesn't want to have to fight with their OS. There are just far too many obvious and critical bugs in Ubuntu to recommend it to an inexperienced user without a strong hacker ethic. While I still prefer using Linux over Windows as a software developer, I find myself beginning to lose more and more patience with Ubuntu with every new release. When will ...

Windows can't see Apache on Linux machine when in one location, can in other. Linux PC can see server in both locations.
We have two offices A and B, connected by kilostream. We have a Linux box in location A, running Mandrake 9 and the Apache web server. We have some Linux boxes in location B, and loads of Windows machines. The problem is that whenever a Windows box is in location B, it can't see any pages served up by the Linux based web server in A. It can ping it, but if you telnet to port 80 from the Windows machine you get nothing back. If I pick up the Windows machine, and transport it to location A, plug it into the network, all works OK. At the moment I'm using SQUID on a Linux box in locat...

[News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation
Is Virtualization Just Another Buzzword? ,----[ Quote ] | The other problem is that given that virtualization is such a hot buzzword, | it is being thrown into the IT investment research mix in ways that make | entirely no sense at all technically. `---- http://seekingalpha.com/article/48555-is-virtualization-just-another-buzzword?source=yahoo You might as well guess that some people, who type away on their Windows XP PC, cannot grasp the fact that their CPU is idle most of the time and memory is unused. Virtualisation will reach the desktop too (thin-clients or meshed computing likely)...

Could it be? Something Windows can do but Linux can't?
In general, most things can be done on either OS with varying degrees of success. And certainly, this isn't something that couldn't be done, but for now AFAICT isn't. http://www.maxivista.com/ Basically, this allows you to treat a secondary computer, such as a laptop, as an additional monitor for your desktop. Note that this is very different from simply running apps remotely on the second computer, this is actually exporting a "virtual" display (ala RDP or VNC) so that you can, for example, drag a window from one computer to the other. I'm asking honestly here, ...

Windows "routing" server separating two subnets
Gurus, I have a small lab with a bunch of servers setup on two different subnets, 192.168.1.1 is the gateway for one and 172.16.1.1 is the gateway for the other. Installed on my Router (Windows Server with three NICs - I know, please don't comment on this, it's is for learning purposes, not production), the third NIC is the gateway to the Internet. What works: The Router server can reach the Internet as well as the computers in the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet (the first subnet built). What's broken: The computers on the 172.16.1.0/16 subnet cannot get to the Inter...

Windows "routing" server separating two subnets
Gurus, I have a small lab with a bunch of servers setup on two different subnets, 192.168.1.1 is the gateway for one and 172.16.1.1 is the gateway for the other. Installed on my Router (Windows Server with three NICs - I know, please don't comment on this, it's is for learning purposes, not production), the third NIC is the gateway to the Internet. What works: The Router server can reach the Internet as well as the computers in the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet (the first subnet built). What's broken: The computers on the 172.16.1.0/16 subnet cannot get to the Inter...

config.sys corrupted; can't fix; can't start windows 2000
The computer attempts to open windows 2000 pro and gets hung up with the message that winn config.sus is corrupted. I tried booting from the win 2000 cd-rom and then creating floppy boot disks. The computer won't recognize or run off of these. Rename the Config.sys file in the root directly to ConfigOLD.sys. See if the machine will boot without it for now. Any release of NT should be able to. If you work out for sure that the Config.sys file is faulty, you can go in with your text editor, and troubleshoot it. You will need the base knowledge to work in this file. Jerry G. ======== ...

[News] A Dozen Things you Can't Do in Windows (But Can Do in GNU/Linux)
Things I can do in Linux that I can't do on Windows. ,----[ Quote ] | # Update every single piece of software on my system with a single | action... | | # Update nearly everything on my computer without a reboot... | | # Keep my system secure without software that consumes my system resources, | requires my time, and frequently nags me... | | # Run an entire operating system for free without pirating software, | and without breaking the law... | | # Take my settings with me where ever I go... | | # Run Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0 on the same desktop... | | # Un...

Can't start thread in linux, porting code to linux from windows
ACE version: 5.4.8 OS: Red Hat Linux 3.2.3 GCC: 3.2.3 20030502 MACRO DEFINE: ACE_HAS_WCHAR, ACE_USES_WCHAR In the linux, I start the 4 threads to run the reactor event loop, the reactor is the ACE_TP_Reactor. And call the thread manager to spaw the new threads using following methods, and the thread group id is returned with value 1. but the event_loop can't be activated. I don't know why cause this. The same code run well in windows OS. Another, I try to use the pthread_create directly to run thread in linux, it is ok also. Following is the code snippet. ...

Can't see anything in Network Neighborhood, but network still works. HELP!
I've got a SOHO network with 3 machines running Win98SE talking to a D-Link router with a DSL connection. Up until this week, everything worked fine. And it still does With one exception. None of the 3 machines can see anything in Network Neighborhood. No 'Entire Network', nothing. Drives that were shared between various machines still get mounted at startup and work with no problems. However, no new drives can be shared since they can't be seen. All machines can still get to the Internet.. Powering down and rebooting everything makes no difference. Nothing i...

Why can't the rest of my network see my Linux box's hostname?
Hi all, Apologies in advance if this is a FAQ - I couldn't find an FAQ list. I would appreciate some help/advice about getting my network right. I have a small business network with Macs (running Mac OS X) and a variety of Windows PCs. This network is connected to a Netgear DG834 ADSL router and thence to my ISP. I have added a new Linux box to this network today, running Fedora Core 2. When I look at the list of attached devices in the Netgear console it sees the Linux box as hostname marple and ip address 192.168.0.6. The hostname setting on the box is marple. However when I...

[News] Poor Windows Can't Do Online Banking, GNU/Linux Sure Can
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Linux Picks Up Where Windows FAIL! ,----[ Quote ] | So; knowing that, we tried it on my installation of Fedora and I tried it | with Epiphany and Firefox and BoYAH! We’re in! Just one more reason to switch | from Windows to Linux. Linux can get you into online banking. `---- http://www.fergytech.com/2009/06/linux-picks-up-where-windows-fail/ Banks should be smart enough to block Windows and IE. It's how accounts get compromised. Related: UK banking fraud losses rise to £301.7m ,----[ Quote ] | UK banking losses due to fraud in ...

How can I network 3 Windows PC's and 2 Linux PC's?
I have three Winodws running PC's(Win 2K, XP), I downloaded lot of freely available programs (anti-virus and some other installable programs) and stored on one PC. I want to install the same programs on other Windows PC's, How can I access it. All are on the local LAN. I can ping each PC from any of the machine. The same way can I access the files on my Wiondows PC from Linux PC and viceversa?. How can I do that?. Please let me know. If I access my PC where I stored all of my programs from another PC, it will be very quick to install. Also I need to access some files across PC&...

Web resources about - Still can't network Linux and Windows - comp.protocols.smb

Resources last updated: 1/30/2016 7:03:29 PM