Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: "Herb Martin" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:07:04 -0500
"Pegasus" <I.can@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e6GUq0PsHHA.4860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Jon" <Jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DC311C60-378B-403E-9F04-EBBDA55AEEC3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
I'm struggling to understand permissions in W2k3 server standard. I have
shared a folder, 'Documents', and set the share permission for my user
group
to Read only. On a sub-folder within 'Documents' I want my user group to
have
full control so have set the folder's security permissions appropriately.
However, members of the user group are denied access.
Which set of permissions take precedence? Should I avoid share
permissions
altogether or set them in a particular way?
Apologies if this has been answered before - haven't been able to find
the
answer.
Thanks, Jon
You should set the Share permissions to "Full access" for everyone,
then tune the NTFS permissions to meet your specific requirements.
As a general recommendation this is not a good one -- sometimes it is
the right choice, but share permissions should ALSO be set by GROUP,
and set to the minimum needed for that group.
Anyone can make a mistake setting the NTFS permissions and share
permissions give us another layer of defense IF security is important to
us.
In general, "Everyone" (and similar generic groups) should seldom if
ever be used when graning ANY permissions.
Use specific groups. Give the minimum.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Pegasus
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- References:
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Pegasus
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Prev by Date: Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Next by Date: Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Previous by thread: Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Next by thread: Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading