[KLUG Members] Re: Samba encrypted passwords

[Jon Smitley]

Bryan J. Smith wrote on 12/5/02 8:41 am:

>Two things to remember 
>about encrypted passwords:
> 1.  They are 100% false 
>security (verbatim 
>"password hash")
> 2.  They only affect how 
>Windows clients make 
>"assumptions"

I understand that most Win?? passwords are for preferences only.

>If you run NT-based 
>Windows (4.0, 5.0/5.1 aka 
>2000/XP), then #2 is what 
>matters.  #2 is why you 
>have to retype your 
>password when connecting to 
>different servers with 
>NT-based Windows when not 
>using encrypted passwords.  
>If you enable encrypted 
>passwords, NT-based 
>Windows now catches them, 
>so you don't run into this.

This is just a home based network with 1 Linux box & 2 Win98 boxes.

>> For your info I am using:
>> 	RH 8.0
>> 	Samba 2.2.7
>> 	Webmin 1.030
>
>For Samba, "SWAT" (Samba 
>Web Admin Tool) is the best, 
>most featured.

OK, I'll see if I can get that started. It hasn't responded when asked for.  I'll check /etc/services for:

swat		901/tcp

>> Basically, Win98 can see to 
>the point that security sets 
>in, whether it  at the user 
>level or the share level.
>> 
>> At user level I get;
>> 	 //Madness/IPC$
>> Password ______________
>> 
>> At share level I get;
>> 	 //Madness/sharename
>> Password ___________________

>Are you using "share" security?  Or >"user" security?

If I'm not mistaken, the first example is at user level security and the second is at share level security. But I could be entirely wrong?!?

Thanks for the response
	Jon



Jon Smitley
lunitix@earthlink.net

"Man knows no-thing that has not a name"