Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[Samba] Why did samba4 remove "force security mode" and "force directory security"?
687 views
Skip to first unread message
Sense Zeng
May 16, 2016, 5:50:03 AM5/16/16
to
I just upgrade samba 3.6 to samba 4.3, folow the ubuntu 12.04 upgrade to
14.04. And I found out Samba 4 removed "force security mode" and "force
directory security" from smb.conf. I don't understand why remove them,
because I think they are irreplaceable.
I need to keep some permission of the file or directory in the samba share
and make sure them can't change by anyone even the file ownner. With "force
security mode" and "force directory security" I can easy to do it. But in
Samba 4 I can't use the same setting any more, and I can't find the instead
setting in smb.conf.
Could anyone tell me why "force security mode" and "force directory
security" have been remove for Samba 4?
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
14.04. And I found out Samba 4 removed "force security mode" and "force
directory security" from smb.conf. I don't understand why remove them,
because I think they are irreplaceable.
I need to keep some permission of the file or directory in the samba share
and make sure them can't change by anyone even the file ownner. With "force
security mode" and "force directory security" I can easy to do it. But in
Samba 4 I can't use the same setting any more, and I can't find the instead
setting in smb.conf.
Could anyone tell me why "force security mode" and "force directory
security" have been remove for Samba 4?
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Rowland penny
May 16, 2016, 6:00:03 AM5/16/16
to
On 16/05/16 10:13, Sense Zeng wrote:
> I just upgrade samba 3.6 to samba 4.3, folow the ubuntu 12.04 upgrade to
> 14.04. And I found out Samba 4 removed "force security mode" and "force
> directory security" from smb.conf. I don't understand why remove them,
> because I think they are irreplaceable.
> I need to keep some permission of the file or directory in the samba share
> and make sure them can't change by anyone even the file ownner. With "force
> security mode" and "force directory security" I can easy to do it. But in
> Samba 4 I can't use the same setting any more, and I can't find the instead
> setting in smb.conf.
> Could anyone tell me why "force security mode" and "force directory
> security" have been remove for Samba 4?
See here: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9190
> I just upgrade samba 3.6 to samba 4.3, folow the ubuntu 12.04 upgrade to
> 14.04. And I found out Samba 4 removed "force security mode" and "force
> directory security" from smb.conf. I don't understand why remove them,
> because I think they are irreplaceable.
> I need to keep some permission of the file or directory in the samba share
> and make sure them can't change by anyone even the file ownner. With "force
> security mode" and "force directory security" I can easy to do it. But in
> Samba 4 I can't use the same setting any more, and I can't find the instead
> setting in smb.conf.
> Could anyone tell me why "force security mode" and "force directory
> security" have been remove for Samba 4?
Rowland
Sense Zeng
May 16, 2016, 10:50:04 AM5/16/16
to
Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and "force directory
security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to remove them. Maybe
just a warning to the users remain that these parameters cost the acl
problem, they should use them carefully.
security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to remove them. Maybe
just a warning to the users remain that these parameters cost the acl
problem, they should use them carefully.
Rowland penny
May 16, 2016, 11:30:03 AM5/16/16
to
On 16/05/16 15:46, Sense Zeng wrote:
> Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and "force
> directory security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to
> remove them. Maybe just a warning to the users remain that these
> parameters cost the acl problem, they should use them carefully.
I don't think they will be coming back, they were removed 4 main
> Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and "force
> directory security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to
> remove them. Maybe just a warning to the users remain that these
> parameters cost the acl problem, they should use them carefully.
branches and approximately 3 and half years ago :-)
Rowland
Sketch
May 16, 2016, 12:00:03 PM5/16/16
to
On Mon, 16 May 2016, Sense Zeng wrote:
> Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and "force directory
> security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to remove them. Maybe
> just a warning to the users remain that these parameters cost the acl
> problem, they should use them carefully.
You can still use "force create mode" and "force directory mode" to set
> Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and "force directory
> security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to remove them. Maybe
> just a warning to the users remain that these parameters cost the acl
> problem, they should use them carefully.
the initial permissions, even though you can't prevent users from removing
those permissions later. I still use this on a setup that is solely using
unix permissions to force SGID permissions on directories (and g+rw on
files), I presume you are doing something similar.
I guess the Samba team wants you to use Windows ACLs for advanced
permissions management.
Sense Zeng
May 16, 2016, 9:10:03 PM5/16/16
to
I setup a cron task to check and fix the permission. Thanks for all.
0 new messages