On 2/1/08, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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).
As far as I can tell, it's not insecure, it's just a voluntary choice by the user to not require any credentials from people accessing the share, which what many users expect (this is also why this discussion has heated up). Security is a completely moot topic here if the problem is that shares can be accessed by Ubuntu machines, but not Windows XP ones. -- 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
