samba - Feb 2017 - One username for multiple clients?

I've just got a question. I've searched extensively for an answer and
can't seem to find anyone else who is even curious about this, much less an
answer.

Simply put: We don't care about security at the office. Our current
configuration is to have just one SMB user logged in on ALL machines. We've
had a little bit of weirdness but can't pin it down.

In other words, we have about 40 machines all connected to our shares with the
same user "smb". Is there a problem with this?

Thank you,
Eric

Am 22.02.2017 um 12:44 schrieb Eric Altman via samba:
> Simply put: We don't care about security at the office. Our current
configuration is to have just one SMB user logged in on ALL machines. We've
had a little bit of weirdness but can't pin it down.
besides that "We don't care about security at the office" is not
very
smart at all (you will regret it when the first client with a crypto 
malware starts to encrypt your shares and you don#t have a clue which of 
the 40 machines is infected) you need to describe "little bit of
weirdness"

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#beprecise
> In other words, we have about 40 machines all connected to our shares with
the same user "smb". Is there a problem with this?
normally not because it's pretty normal that a user has more than one 
connection

<http://www.lumaforge.com/>
Eric Altman ❱❱ CTO
PHONE  310.752.9993 x701
EMAIL  eric at lumaforge.com   <mailto:tyler at lumaforge.com>
WEB  lumaforge.com <http://lumaforge.com/>
OFFICE  6608 Lexington Ave. Hollywood, CA 90038

> On Feb 22, 2017, at 4:24 AM, Reindl Harald via samba <samba at
lists.samba.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am 22.02.2017 um 12:44 schrieb Eric Altman via samba:
>> Simply put: We don't care about security at the office. Our current
configuration is to have just one SMB user logged in on ALL machines. We've
had a little bit of weirdness but can't pin it down.
> 
> besides that "We don't care about security at the office" is
not very smart at all (you will regret it when the first client with a crypto
malware starts to encrypt your shares and you don#t have a clue which of the 40
machines is infected) you need to describe "little bit of weirdness"
Totally understand that. First off, it isn't my call and the interest
isn't there from above in anything along the lines of
AD/OD/Kerberizing/etc... much less at least creating a handful of users directly
on the server and handing out individual passwords.

Weirdness = Maybe a couple of times a day, a seemingly random client machine
(macOS) will disconnect all clients from our Ubuntu based server. This
doesn't cause a hang/lock/or anything, the shares can be mounted right back
up. But depending on the work being done at the time, it can result in a good
amount of work being lost.
> 
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#beprecise
> 
>> In other words, we have about 40 machines all connected to our shares
with the same user "smb". Is there a problem with this?
> 
> normally not because it's pretty normal that a user has more than one
connection
> 
That was my thinking, but due to the issues occurring, I felt the need to cover
every avenue I haven't explored yet.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL:
<http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20170222/f697b0a1/signature.sig>