Re: Full Share Permission
From: Steve Foster [SBS MVP] (steve.foster_at_picamar.co.uk)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: Steve Foster [SBS MVP]: "Re: Congratulations LanWench !"
- Previous message: burmagirl: "Re: how to browse other computers on the domain......"
- In reply to: mjs1138: "Re: Full Share Permission"
- Next in thread: mjs1138: "Re: Full Share Permission"
- Reply: mjs1138: "Re: Full Share Permission"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:32:50 -0800
mjs1138 wrote:
> OK... If I understand this right this statement should be correct: The
ONLY
> advantage of Share Full-Control is that if I happen to have the NTFS
change
> permission on a file/folder in the share, I can then change my NTFS
> permissions on that file/folder. Or to put it another way the only
purpose of
> Share Full-Control is to allow the exercise of NTFS change. Is that
correct?
> Did Full-Control only come into existence after NTFS or does it have a
> different purpose in FAT disks?
>
FAT partitions have no security of their own. Therefore the only security
on a FAT partition accessed by network share is that enforced by Share
permissions.
In that context, Full Control is equivalent to Read + Change.
Another way to look at the Share permission Full Control is that this
effectively leaves all security matters to the underlying file structure
security implementation. Users can do anything with the share that they
can do if accessing the underlying folders directly (ie from the machine
hosting the share).
-- Steve Foster [SBS MVP] --------------------------------------- MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.
- Next message: Steve Foster [SBS MVP]: "Re: Congratulations LanWench !"
- Previous message: burmagirl: "Re: how to browse other computers on the domain......"
- In reply to: mjs1138: "Re: Full Share Permission"
- Next in thread: mjs1138: "Re: Full Share Permission"
- Reply: mjs1138: "Re: Full Share Permission"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|