On Feb 1, 2008 8:41 AM, Soren Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:18:10PM -0000, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > This is not the correct solution for this problem. If you ask a > > Windows user (like you are saying that we should), > > That's not what I said at all. Quit putting words in my mouth. > > I said that if you asked a new Ubuntu user: "So, dude, do you think we > should put security=share in your smb.conf?", he'll have no clue what > you're talking about. Hence, it's completely mistaken to say that "new > users expect that their smb.conf says security=share". No, they don't. > They expect to be able to share their files. > Nobody claimed that users have a specifical technical preference about a single setting in smb.conf. Ralf (at least in my reading) simply claimed that there is nothing in the *effects* you obtain by setting security=share that does not match users' expectations. I will be pleased if you could tell us what are the unexpected effects of such a configuration, because surely I don't know samba well enough to understand. > he will reply that when he shares a directory on Windows, then no > > usernames or passwords are required to access the shared resource *by > > default*. > > I find Windows' security model quite uninteresting. I'm not discussing a security model. I'm presenting an usability story that I feel is particularly important. I think Windows succeeds in giving the correct usability to users in this regard (and I am not claiming that it is doing in a way that is sensible from a security point of view -- and I really don't care right now about this). > Moreover, the user is shown a simple screen where he can then select > > whether to share read-only or read-write. > > Yes. How is that different from nautilus-share? > > http://gentoo.ovibes.net/nautilus- > share/mediawiki-1.4.4/index.php/NSScreenShots Yes, that is exactly the same. <http://gentoo.ovibes.net/nautilus-share/mediawiki-1.4.4/index.php/NSScreenShots> > And setting security=share achieves exactly this. It might not be the > > only solution, but it works. > > "If you don't want to forget your password for your home banking system, > you can just write in on a Post-It and stick it on your monitor. It's > not the only solution, but it works." I'm sorry, but I'm not going to > solve a problem in a way that creates 27 other problems. You may have > the privilege of being able to ignore those 27 other problems. I'm not. > We take security *and* usability seriously. I'm happy about this, and I am happy if you say "look, there is this other solution which achieves the same usability but it is much more secure". I am failing to see any alternative proposal at this point (and I'm failing to see why security=share is unsecure as I said before, but that is due my ignorance). -- Giovanni Bajo -- the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome sharing broken https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/32067 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
