Am 27.02.2012 13:39, schrieb John H Terpstra: > On 02/27/2012 04:58 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote: >> I recently proposed on samba-technical that for Samba 4.0, that we >> change security=share to have the following semantics: >> >> - All connections are made as the guest user >> - No passwords are required, and no other accounts are available. >> >> Naturally, full user-name/password authentication remain available in >> security=user and above. >> >> The rationale is that we need a very simple way to run a 'trust the >> network' Samba server, where users mark shares as guest ok. I want to >> keep these simple configurations working. >> >> At the same time, I want to close the door on one of the most arcane >> areas of Samba authentication. The problem comes from the fact that >> Samba never implemented security=share properly: instead of having one >> password per share, we tried to guess the username, and match that to a >> username/password pair. >> >> Not only is this code complex, it begins to fail with modern clients and >> modern security settings. For example, NTLMv2 relies on the username >> and workgroup, but clients which send NTLMv2 do not send these in the >> 'tree connect' request that contains the password. Instead, we must >> remember the previous unchecked 'session setup', and apply the password >> from there. If we instead guess the username, then NTLMv2 will not >> work. >> >> Finally, Samba clients only send LM passwords to security=share servers. >> LM passwords are very insecure, and are now off by default. As such, >> Samba clients will not connect to any server running security=share by >> default. >> >> If you use security=share, and feel that your particular configuration >> cannot be handled any other way, please let me know, so we can find the >> best to handle your particular requirements. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andrew Bartlett > > Is there any reason we can not do away with "security = share" and get > rid of this altogether? Was there not a prior proposal to deprecate > this back in the early days of 3.0.x?
I only remember a discussion at the 3.6.0preX time. I'd love to remove "security=share" completely, but I'm also ok with keeping it for anonymous access only. metze
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
