> Why is it more secure to create a separate share for storing user profiles?
it is not more secure :-)
the only thing I see in putting profiles on separate share is the need of
emulating ACL on profiles. w2k sp4 is very picky about ACLs, so samba
emulates them with "profiles acls = yes". It _might_ be inappropriate
to have such ACL emulation on "homes" share.
However (it isn't written on man page, I think it should be updated ?),
if samba is configured with ACL support (I'm running such samba servers on
FreeBSD-5.X+UFS2 + windows xp sp2 workstations), it is ok to run it
without "profile acls", I noticed no problems this way.
>
> I've tested using:
>
> [global]
> logon path = \\%L\profiles\%U
>
> [profiles]
> path = /var/lib/samba/profiles
>
> And this works fine. But, why not just put the profile in the home
> directory? I can see that a user might save a file on the desktop and
> then not be able to find it. When I previously used roaming profiles
> on a Windows Server, the location was in the user's profile directory.
>
> Is this so the user won't accidently delete their own profile in their
home dir?
>
> What are the advantages of using a separate share for profiles?
>
> What are the problems in storing the roaming profile in the home directory?
>
> I'm using Samba with LDAP on SuSE, and will be using roaming profiles
> in a lab environment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yasee
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>