Samba 2.2.8a and Win2k - SMB

This is a discussion on Samba 2.2.8a and Win2k - SMB ; Hi! I have Samba 2.2.8a on a FreeBSD 5.1 machine (hostname = helios) and want to connect to it from my Windows 2000 machine (hostname = rimfire). No Domain, no fancy stuff, just want a private share on my home ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Samba 2.2.8a and Win2k

  1. Samba 2.2.8a and Win2k

    Hi!

    I have Samba 2.2.8a on a FreeBSD 5.1 machine (hostname = helios) and want to
    connect to it from my Windows 2000 machine (hostname = rimfire). No Domain,
    no fancy stuff, just want a private share on my home dir on helios and a
    public share to a separate partition.

    The two machines kan see each other over the net, no problem there.

    I tried a configuration that I have been running on a Solaris machine at
    work for nearly two years - didn't work. So I start from basics:


    When no Samba is running, "net view \\helios" returns System error 53, which
    I guess is fair enough.

    When running Samba with a smb.conf containing only the line [homes], "net
    view \\helios" returns System error 5.

    Adding the line "security = share" to my smb.conf gives me a view of the
    homes share, but I cannot log in.

    Changing share to user brings me back to System error 5

    Creating a public share, t.ex. [export] works beautifully as long as
    security is "share". Change is to "user" and nothing works.


    I'm doing something basically wrong here, but what? Can anybody give me a
    hint?

    Best Regards
    --
    Leif B. Rasmussen
    ------------------------------------------
    "More and more I find I want to be living in a Big Here and a Long Now" -
    Brian Eno.





  2. Re: Samba 2.2.8a and Win2k

    Leif B. Rasmussen wrote:

    > I'm doing something basically wrong here, but what? Can anybody give me a
    > hint?


    Maybe if you gave us a little more detail? Like what (if any) log
    entries are in the samba log(s) on helios?

    Keep in mind details like the smbpasswd file, local password file etc.
    Posting your smb.conf might prove useful (but you may want strip out
    comments first).

    --
    Rob MacGregor (BOFH) Oh my God! They killed init! You bastards!
    The light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming dragon.


  3. Re: Samba 2.2.8a and Win2k

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:42:27 +0200, Leif B. Rasmussen wrote:

    ....
    > Ok.
    >
    > Here is a little more.
    > I more or less lost track of all the large and small corrections I made
    > during the process.
    > This smb.conf is modeled after the one I'm using at work:
    >
    > [global]
    > workgroup = fireworks
    > server string = Samba Server
    > hosts allow = 192.168.1. 127.
    > hosts deny = ALL


    Works in this context. I tried out just now and it really denies ALL.
    Denials take precedence.

    > log file = /var/log/log.%m
    > max log size = 50
    > socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 interfaces
    > = 192.168.1.100
    > security = share


    Outdated, at least for 2K you should rather use "security = user". With
    "share", you would have to give a "username = ..." statement to each share
    also, or let samba guess the unix type user. Which might lead to "nobody"
    with literally "no" unix permissions on that share.

    > encrypt passwords = yes
    > passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd
    >
    > [homes]
    > comment = Home Directories
    > browseable = no
    > writeable = yes
    >

    Look above. The "homes" share (=/home/`logname`) usually has a 700
    permission set (noone else is allowed even to enter it).
    ....
    > It works "as is" but not for my [homes] share (the [public] share
    > works). When security = user, it does not work at all. The strange thing
    > is, that if i do a "net view" after trying the [homes] share, it is
    > visible!
    >

    You must do a "smbpasswd -a " and supply the same
    password you use when logging on to 2K. Well, that username has to exist
    in your unix password database also. Unix and samba passwords can be
    different, and you don't need to give a samba-user a shell (so use
    /bin/false in its /etc/passwd stanza).

    --
    WinXXP error#4711: TCPA/NGSCB VIOLATION: Non-approved partition-id 83 (linux)
    discovered. Online-recertification and reactivation of Microsoft products
    required, 3 days grace period: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
    http://moon.hipjoint.de/tcpa-palladium-faq-de.html (DE)


  4. Re: Samba 2.2.8a and Win2k

    [snip]
    > > log file = /var/log/log.%m
    > > max log size = 50
    > > socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 interfaces
    > > = 192.168.1.100
    > > security = share

    >
    > Outdated, at least for 2K you should rather use "security = user". With
    > "share", you would have to give a "username = ..." statement to each share
    > also, or let samba guess the unix type user. Which might lead to "nobody"
    > with literally "no" unix permissions on that share.
    >
    > > encrypt passwords = yes
    > > passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd

    [snip]
    > You must do a "smbpasswd -a " and supply the same
    > password you use when logging on to 2K. Well, that username has to exist
    > in your unix password database also. Unix and samba passwords can be
    > different, and you don't need to give a samba-user a shell (so use
    > /bin/false in its /etc/passwd stanza).


    Thank you-

    smbpasswd -a was the one that escaped me - apparently the version I'm using
    at work is so old, that the smbpasswd step is unnecessary.

    /Leif



+ Reply to Thread