samba - Nov 2002 - "hiding" and "vetoing" files (for Samba 2.2.2 & Windows Explorer)

We're running Samba 2.2.2 on an RS/6000 (AIX 4.3.3) using Windows 95 
clients.  We've tried the "hide files" and "veto files"
option in smb.conf,
but when the shares are mapped, we can still see the contents in Windows 
Explorer.  We used the wildcard for all the contents of the shares (ex. 
hide files = /*.*/).  The Samba manual only makes reference to Windows 98, 
so is this even applicable on 95?  Once we test on 95, we'll be upgrading 
to Windows 2000.  If at all possible, we wanted to hide the entire share on 
Windows Explorer (not just the contents).  We were told when mapping, we 
could specify a "$" at the end of the share within the "net
use" syntax and
this would hide the entire share, but it doesn't work and they were doing 
this on an NT system (so we're not sure if Windows 95, 98 or 2000 even 
supports this).  Thanks in advance for any help.
Darin

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:00:59PM -0800, Darin DeCounter
wrote:
> If at all possible, we wanted to hide the entire share on 
> Windows Explorer (not just the contents).
Set `browseable = no' in your smb.conf in the share settings.

HTH
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20021106/15a0bb07/attachment.bin

We're running Samba 2.2.2 on an RS/6000 (AIX 4.3.3) using Windows 95 
clients. We've tried the "hide files" and "veto files"
option in smb.conf,
but when the shares are mapped, we can still see the contents in Windows 
Explorer. We used the wildcard for all the contents of the shares (ex. hide 
files = /*.*/). The Samba manual only makes reference to Windows 98, so is 
this even applicable on 95? Once we test on 95 and implement, we'll be 
upgrading to Windows 2000. If at all possible, we wanted to hide the entire 
share on Windows Explorer (not just the contents, but we'll take what we 
can get). Someone said when mapping, we could specify a "$" at the end
of
the share within the "net use" syntax and this would hide the entire
share,
but it doesn't work and they were doing this on an NT system (so we're
not
sure if Windows 95, 98 or 2000 even supports this).  Thanks in advance for 
any help.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 10:00:48AM -0800, Darin DeCounter
wrote:
> Frank,
> 
> Thanks for your suggestion.  We tried setting "browsable = no"
(along with
> "hide files" & "veto files" option), but we can
still see shares and their
> contents from Windows Explorer ('95 version).  Is this maybe not
possible
> to accomplish using Windows 95?  Thanks for any additional help.
Does some server on yout network make wins?
If not, think about the caching of network objects in the neighbourhood
browser. Do you boot between those test on yout win95 maschine?

If the share is setup with "browsable = no" there is _no_ way to get
this
share name by browsing. It can only be accessible by caching an old entry.

Some words to hide/veto files: If it's possible to uses valid users for
those
shares, use them instead of hide/veto files. The server needs much perfomance
for hiding and vetoing for every user connection. This should be a bootleneck.

Please let us know the results.

-- 
Frank Matthie?                                    fm+samba@Microdata-pos.de

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:27:59PM -0800, Darin DeCounter
wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> When our users sign onto the network first thing in the morning,
they're
> authenticated through our NT-PDC.  Once authenticated, their login script 
> maps all 3 shares (via the "net use" command).  They need these
shares to
> remain mapped so they can use their application to do their work...so they 
> have to be "valid users".  We just need to find a way to keep
them from
> seeing the shares and/or their content when in Windows 
> Explorer.    Browsable is set to "no" for all shares and
we've also tried
> with & without hide/veto file option with no success.
Do you have a chance to get a newer samba version. I use those parameters some
days ago in an school environment, so i know they work correct. 

You have really no chance to make a differnece between good applications like
"word processors" and bad apps like windows explorer. If you need
acces with
good apps, than your bad apps has also.

-- 
Frank Matthie?                                    fm+samba@Microdata-pos.de