Re: SFU3.5 and getting permissions to work

i have tried 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5
i thought i didn't have to do this before but i must be thinking
windows out to unix, not unix into windows...

the other option the business analysts have suggested is having me
just allow FTP in. but that would mean installing IIS..

the reason to do this is that we have a unix host that has to drop a
file on the Windows server that everyone can read..
for some reason i just am not grasping the whole user/pw file thing,
or the format to set it in. i can't find documentation that says how
to set the files up.




On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:14:43 +1200, Enkidu <enkidu.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Yes, I'll look for you. Yes, it does work by files.
>Specifically, a "passwd" and a "group" file.
>
>You associate a Windows user (eg administrator) with a Unix
>user (eg root). You can associate a Windows group (eg
>administrators) with a Unix group, (eg root)
>
>Please note, I am using SFU 3.0, but the principle is the same.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Cliff
>
>BobMarley wrote:
>> If you can look monday?
>> I don't understand actually HOW to map..
>> we don't use NIS... so i guess i need a file to do it?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:42:08 +1200, Enkidu <enkidu.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, I have Windows Appliance servers running 2003 and SFU
>>>3.0 and 2TB arrays. It comes with a web-based configuration
>>>utility. I'm not at work at present so I can't remember what
>>>the real name is. In there I map the Administrator and one
>>>other user to root user and similar for groups.
>>>
>>>I guess another thing to check would be the NFS share
>>>permissions on the shared directories.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Cliff
>>>
>>>BobMarley wrote:
>>>
>>>>i can't figure out how to do that.
>>>>have you done it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 14:00:10 +1200, Enkidu <enkidu.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Don't do mapping? You *have* to map at least one user or
>>>>>group, don't you, to determine who has access to the files.
>>>>>I guess you could map the Everyone group to the root user.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>Clifff
>>>>>
>>>>>BobMarley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We don't do mapping.
>>>>>>i seem to remember never having to do it before...
>>>>>>I was wondering if this was a new security feature in 3.0 or 3.5
>>>>>>
>>>>>>what i'd love to do is have the file created by the unix host, be
>>>>>>available as EVERYONE with full control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>any idea how i can do that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:23:06 +1200, Enkidu <enkidu.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BobMarley wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have a unix server connecting to an NFS mount point on my
>>>>>>>>Windows Server. Whenever a file is written there by the unix server,
>>>>>>>>it typically comes across as having permissions only of SYSTEM and
>>>>>>>>read. So no one is ever able to access the file
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How can i have it come across so that it is a file readable by
>>>>>>>>Windows users? I thought it did that by default in earlier versions,
>>>>>>>>but maybe 3.5 changed that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We use SFU 3.0 and it a major pain in the ... neck! When you
>>>>>>>add a file or change permissions on the Unix it creates a
>>>>>>>new Windows ACL. This means that all users/groups with
>>>>>>>permissions on that directory and the files in it become
>>>>>>>inaccessible on the Windows for almost all users. The new
>>>>>>>acl seems to wipe all existing acls and since it is
>>>>>>>theoretically inherited (don't know why) all you see in the
>>>>>>>permissions is grey blank boxes which you can't change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What we have to do periodically is take ownership of the
>>>>>>>directory and all sub-directories and files and set the
>>>>>>>permissions back again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Though having said that, have you checked the mapping
>>>>>>>between Windows users and groups and Unix users and groups?
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>


.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: [in] Re: [Full-Disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox
    ... the first user is the administrator account. ... Unix does NOT do that. ... Windows has several groups. ... contents and all it's subfolders. ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: What is the more popular UNIX flavor?
    ... about my experience with Solaris and Cygwin. ... installing packages. ... needing eg tftp you only need to activate on a Unix system. ... probably need installing first on the equivalent Windows system. ...
    (comp.unix.questions)
  • Re: Five Architectural Flaws in Windows Solved In Mac OS X
    ... But it is still an improvement over Unix, wherein *any executable* can be highly privileged and interact with the user. ... The usual security precautions prevent unauthorized people from doing this, but that's true on Windows also. ... I just got thru upgrading the wifes Mac to Tiger and hpfs is the default. ... This is a more advanced design that Unixes have been trying to duplicate by adding thread support. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Linux no threat to Microsoft
    ... originally developed for Unix. ... Windows has't come on any of the machines I've ever purchased. ... Yet over those years Linux Market Share on the desktop has actually ... philosophy of Apple - later adopted by Microsoft. ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: Problem setting up NFS on Ubuntu
    ... >>> forgotten most of the litle I knew about commercial Unix, ... >> alike on the FS and use samba to export it to doze clients. ... >>> I have also discovered how to login to the gui as root, ... >>> which should make windows client access easier, and does work also from RISC ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)