That's only if you don't explicitly manage the List permissions for the shared folder (via NTFS), as was originally asked.
------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Esgro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:35 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Possible STUPID NTFS Question > > > I concur. > > If you allow full access to a share the people will be able > to view what is > in the share. > If a person goes to share name called HR and then sees a > directory below it > called "next month drug screens" they may be more inclined to > try to hack > their way into that folder. > What they don't know won't hurt them. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:24 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Possible STUPID NTFS Question > > I disagree. > > Using both sets of permissions (share and file) is a more > effective way > to manage resources, rather than letting everyone connect to every > share, only to find that they can't access anything below it. > > There are very few shares that I'll leave with "EVERYONE:F" on them. > > > > ============================================================== > ASB - http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=Perms.TXT > ============================================================== > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Mustafa Ibrahim > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:23 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Possible STUPID NTFS Question > > > > It is best you don't mix Share permissions with NTFS. It can be > impossible to manage as it can cause confusion. Usually we'd > assign full > share permission to authenticated users, and lockdown the NTFS > permissions. I would highly recommend this. If what you want > is to hide > folders, it is much more sensible to use hidden shares and just map a > drive directly to that folder. I hope this helps. Good luck. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 30 December 2002 14:45 > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: Possible STUPID NTFS Question > > > I have never actually had to do this before (but I do now thanks to my > boss! > :) > > Can you set up NTFS permission so if there are a group of > folders in the > root of a shared folder, a group has CHANGE SHARE permissions and then > CHANGE FOLDER permissions on ONE of the folders but not even > SEE (LIST?) > the rest of the folders? I have tried selecting the rest and setting > DENY on every option but you can still list them and see > them. Ideas? Am > I missing something stupid? Windows 2000 server sp3 > > Thanks! > > Chris > > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > *****This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have > received this > email in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any > views or opinions > presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not > necessarily represent those of Stainsafe Inc. or any of its > subsidiaries or > affiliates. The company accepts no liability for any damage > caused by any > virus transmitted by this email.***** > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
