Re: Nested Permissions and Traversing...Best Practice
- From: "SixDoubleO" <SixDoubleO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:32:01 -0700
Yes, that is correct....you don't HAVE to grant traverse permissions. Users
can explicitly access the nexted directory. However, that assumes alot
about the ability of your users. Assume that I am dealing with severe "layer
8" users who only know how to access something by browsing to it. In that
case I must grant them traverse permissions.
In that case what is the best practice.
"Thomas McLeod" wrote:
> I'm not the expert in this area, but my understanding is that one doesn't
> need to grant transverse permissions if absolute paths are used. I.e., you
> can grant everyone access to G:\AppDev\Fiscal Systems\Active Projects\IT2500
> directory, without transverse permissions on the path. But, then everyone
> could not access IT2500 via a sibling path like G:\AppDev\Fiscal
> Systems\Active Projects\IT25XX\..\IT2500\.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
> "SixDoubleO" <SixDoubleO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3224A720-D9FE-4788-9239-7B7811F1BDFB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > I have a question about convention or best practices in terms of file
> sharing
> > and nested permissions.
> >
> > Assume I have the following path:
> >
> > G:\AppDev\Fiscal Systems\Active Projects\IT2500
> >
> > Staff want to limit access to the AppDev folder to just the application
> > development folks. But then at a lower level (at the IT2500 folder) they
> > want to allow a people outside the appdev group access to the folder.
> >
> > My question is not how to do this...well, sorta. What I want to know is
> how
> > some of you are dealing with these types of situations, as they can create
> an
> > administration hassle.
> >
> > As I see it I'd have two Domain Local Resource Groups...
> >
> > F_G_AppDev_W
> > This grants Write access to the folder G:\AppDev and all folders beneath
> it.
> >
> > F_G_AppDev_Fiscal Systems_Active Projects_IT2500_W
> > This grants Write access to the IT2500 folder underneath the AppDev tree.
> >
> > I would then need to assign Traverse/List access to the IT2500 group all
> the
> > way up the tree so that these people can browse down to IT2500. This is
> > messy, especially considering this is only one of many examples where
> staff
> > would like this to happen.
> >
> > I'd love to hear suggestions on how to deal with this. Should I just
> moved
> > IT2500 out to the root of G:\?
> >
> > Thanks for any opinions you might be able to provide.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
.
- References:
- Nested Permissions and Traversing...Best Practice
- From: SixDoubleO
- Re: Nested Permissions and Traversing...Best Practice
- From: Thomas McLeod
- Nested Permissions and Traversing...Best Practice
- Prev by Date: Re: Volume Shadow Copy not running on schedule
- Next by Date: Problems in Routing in RASS
- Previous by thread: Re: Nested Permissions and Traversing...Best Practice
- Next by thread: Excel Temp files created with DFS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
