similar to: No subject

Hi, I have a problem with the inheritance of ACLs, respectively the removal of the inherited ACLs in subdirectories. The following szenario: By default the access rights (including ACLs) should be inherited, but it should also be possible to remove the access rights from any subdirectory. Therefore I've set up the following configuration: [Finanzen] path = /shares/finanzen msdfs root =

Hello I am trying to create a 'dropbox' share, using the sticky bit and 'inherit owner'. By themselves they work, but when a directory is created in this share, its permissions are not quite what I need. Therefore, I try to use 'force directory mode' or 'inherit permissions'. However, whenever I do that, the owner on the newly-created directory is no longer correct

Hi Niki, The principle to work by here is 'least required access'. There's two functional types of users we care about, the one executing the PHP code (probably apache or php-fpm) and admins like yourself with FTP/shell access. Upstream wordpress documents application write requirements at https://codex.wordpress.org/Hardening_WordPress#File_Permissions - read it to know where the

It might help if you view the default directory ACLs using the getfacl utility. These are what will be inherited by stuff created in the lower directories. I would ask yourself if you actually need ACLs at all. The Samba share permissions are pretty thorough and life is far easier without ACLs as you can clearly see what permissions are in use and backups are not an issue. ACLs can quickly

And sorry, to answer your question here's what the smb.conf's looked like: SERVERA - Ubuntu 18.04 (Samba 4.7.6) sudden issue: Hi Louis, > When you get a chance, it seems like a number of our excel files were > corrupted. We can't seem to open them at all. I tried opening them from R > and SPSS. > They give different errors: > My error (mac): > Excel cannot open the

Hello, I've just tested a share configuration like the following and it did not work as I've expected it. Maybe someone can explain me what I'm doing wrong. [Marktplatz] path = /marktplatz msdfs root = no writeable = yes browseable = yes public = no dos filemode = no hide unreadable = no create mode = 0644 directory mode = 1777 force create mode = 0644 force directory mode = 1777

Recently some folks in our engineering group started encountering a problem where they can't write to or alter files or folders they did not create. Anyone know what could be causing this type of problem? The users having the problem are all in the eng group is /etc/groups. smb.conf for that share: smb.conf: #smb.conf is the main Samba configuration file. You find a full commented #

Hello dear list members I am not an experienced user of Samba, so I can be committing some basic mistake, but it seems to me that there is something wrong with the way Samba propagates ACLs. I tried versions 3.0.32 and 3.2.4 and the result is the same. This happens with "map acl inherit = yes" on smb.conf. I have a directory (dir) with the following ACLs: # file: dir USER Admin

All, Running Samba 3.5.4 on Solaris 10 with ZFS file system. I have issues where we have shared group folders. In these folders a userA in GroupA create file just fine with the correct inherited permissions 660. Problem is when userB in GroupA reads and modifies that file, with M$ office apps, the permissions get whacked to 060+ and the file becomes read only by everyone. I did

I'm seeing behavior that I was hoping somebody could explain. I have a share set up that will be a repository for company-wide data. There are three classes of people who can access it, readers, read/writers, and admins. Readers and read/writers are self explanatory, admins have read/write access, and can change the permissions/ownership of files. Read and write access is controlled by

Hello, We use a Ricoh Aficio 3035 copier which has multiple functions- one of them is to scan to a folder via SMB/FTP/NFS. We've chosen to scan documents into PDF documents via SMB to user's shared folders on a Windows NT server for several years with no issues. About a year ago the user's folders location was changed to one on Windows 2003 Server also with no problems. Last week I

Look at the acl(5) man page and you'll see that the ACCESS CHECK ALGORITH starts: IF the effective user ID of the process matches the user ID of the file object owner ... ELSE IF the effective user ID of the process matches the qualifier of any entry of type ACL_USER, THEN IF the matching ACL_USER entry and the ACL_MASK entry contain the requested permissions, access is

to only show shares that the user has access too, but I don't believe it is possible. To remedy this, I tried to create a share called "share". Then create subdirectories under that using UNIX groups. I am using a group sticky bit in conjunction with create mask = 770 to keep the perms straight. Here is the share: [share] nt acl support = no path =

=================================================================== "Forgiveness is the economy of the heart... Forgiveness saves the expense of anger, the cost of hatred, the waste of spirits." Hannah More ================================================================== Release Announcements ===================== This is the first release of Samba 3.6.0. Major

=================================================================== "Forgiveness is the economy of the heart... Forgiveness saves the expense of anger, the cost of hatred, the waste of spirits." Hannah More ================================================================== Release Announcements ===================== This is the first release of Samba 3.6.0. Major

Hi Vincent, have you found a solution that makes "force directory mode = 2770" able to apply to new created folders ? I have a similar problem: if I set by hand (eg. chmod 2770) the folder A and then I try to create an X element into that folder through samba I get the result needed ( group of X become overriden from parent folder A ) but the problem is that the new element X not

I have some deep concerns with what is happening under the hood here with the archive bit. I'm hoping someone will step up to the plate and give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this matter in clear and unambiguous language. Specifically: 1) Is there a known configuration where a Samba file server is fully integrated into an ADS domain (2003) where the setting of

Am 12.08.2016 um 19:40 schrieb Jeremy Allison: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:27:00PM +0200, Reindl Harald via samba wrote: >> >> Am 12.08.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Jeremy Allison via samba: >>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sergei Gerasenko via samba wrote: >>>> It looks like this is a long known issue: >>>> >>>>

bar:/data # smbclient //bar/Documents -U Fernando2%fernando2 Domain=3D[FOOBAR] OS=3D[Unix] Server=3D[Samba 3.4.2-2.1-2229-SUSE-CODE11] smb: \> mkdir mydir smb: \> ls . D 0 Wed Nov 11 17:52:32 2009 .. D 0 Wed Nov 11 17:49:30 2009 mydir D 0 Wed Nov 11 17:52:32 2009

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:27:00PM +0200, Reindl Harald via samba wrote: > > > Am 12.08.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Jeremy Allison via samba: > >On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sergei Gerasenko via samba wrote: > >>It looks like this is a long known issue: > >> > >>https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10792 > > > >If by long known