similar to: read permission on rotated logs

Maybe I'm missing something here but doesn't logrotate have the 'postrotate ... endscript' block for its configuration files where you can run any command you desire? Leroy Tennison Network Information/Cyber Security Specialist E: leroy at datavoiceint.com 2220 Bush Dr McKinney, Texas 75070 www.datavoiceint.com This message has been sent on behalf of a company that is part of the

Folks-- I'm working with an old system I set up to copy files from one local directory to another. I was using rdist for this, but I would prefer to shift it over to rsync. The one thing I'm missing is the trivial ability to force the group owernship of the destination files to a specific group. A read through the manpage and various searches on the web do not turn up any helpful hints

Hi, I'm running Samba Version 3.0.25c on Solaris 10 8/07 on X86 hardware. It's successfully joined to AD. But, and there always is a but, if : * A user is a member of SomeGroup * and the share alllows SomeGroup to access it * and SomeGroup is NOT what the user has set as their Primary Group in Active Directory then * Samba will recognize that the user can access the share * but,

Thank you Kees. On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 09:37, Kees van Vloten via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > I am currently running at 4.19.2 but I have run 4.18.6 and 4.18.5. I did > not experience any issues with nested group lookups, which many of the > filters rely on. Interestingly, I've now found that (on my current DCs, running 4.18.5), ldbsearch *does* seem to return the

On 3/13/19 11:13 PM, Alice Wonder wrote: > When logs (e.g. /var/log/maillog) are rotated (e.g. to > /var/log/maillog-YYYYMDD) is there a way via systemd or whatever to > assign read permission to a specific group? Add the following line to /etc/logrotate.d/syslog, e.g. after sharedscripts: create 640 root somegroup -- Mogens Kjaer, mk at lemo.dk http://www.lemo.dk

> Normally a group cannot 'own' files etc, Unix uses ugo permissions and > when you chown a file you would use something like this: > > chown foo:somegroup somefile > > this would make 'foo' the owner of the file and possibly allow > 'somegroup' access to it, this would depend on whatever permissions you > set with 'chmod' > > So,

Hi, I've a question about the syntax of the valid users option. Any help is greatly appreciated! Here is the Background: samba 3.0.4 Linux as Domain Member Active Directory, not in Native Mode Compiler opions: --with-winbind --with-pam --with-smbmount The goal is to authenticate via the Windows Domain and allow access via Windows groups. The syntax in my smb.conf looks like this:

I'm quite confused by this one, as I can't see how this would happen.. but after upgrading my DCs from 4.11.10 to 4.18.5, LDAP searches don't seem to work if they use the :1.2.840.113556.1.4.1941: modifier, aka LDAP_MATCHING_RULE_IN_CHAIN. (Yes, it was a fairly big version jump.. Yes, I should have upgraded much earlier.. Yes, I know 4.19.x is out now as well) Here's a search that

Op 05-11-2023 om 23:25 schreef Jonathan Hunter via samba: > I'm quite confused by this one, as I can't see how this would happen.. > but after upgrading my DCs from 4.11.10 to 4.18.5, LDAP searches don't > seem to work if they use the :1.2.840.113556.1.4.1941: modifier, aka > LDAP_MATCHING_RULE_IN_CHAIN. (Yes, it was a fairly big version jump.. > Yes, I should have

On Wed, 2023-11-22 at 17:33 +0000, Jonathan Hunter wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 01:03, Andrew Bartlett < > abartlet at samba.org > > wrote: > > Are you sure that the ACLs on all the items in the chain should > > allow reading? > > It's an excellent question, thank you - I'd like to just say "Yes" > but > I will certainly check, as

Op 06-11-2023 om 14:58 schreef Jonathan Hunter: > Thank you Kees. > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 09:37, Kees van Vloten via samba > <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> I am currently running at 4.19.2 but I have run 4.18.6 and 4.18.5. I did >> not experience any issues with nested group lookups, which many of the >> filters rely on. > Interestingly, I've now

I have a fedora core 5 server running samba-3.0.23c-1.fc5 from fedora updates. Recently I changed smb.conf to use security=domain instead of security=user. The server that it authenticates against is running fedora core 4 with samba-3.0.14a-2. Anyway, this setup worked just fine for a couple of weeks, but today I yum updated many packages including pam, glibc and kernel on the fedora 5

We had to do a few changes in this area (due to security issues) over that large number of releases, it is entirely possible there was a regression. If you have time and patience, could you back up your DC, restore into a subdirectory (on your DC or on a test box) with 4.11.10 from git, and then do a git bisect between that and 4.18.5. You can run the query locally with bin/ldbsearch -H

On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 14:32, Kees van Vloten <keesvanvloten at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Op 06-11-2023 om 14:58 schreef Jonathan Hunter: > > Interestingly, I've now found that (on my current DCs, running > > 4.18.5), ldbsearch *does* seem to return the expected result, but the > > same query via ldapsearch does not. > > What if you try to use starttls

As an addendum to my original message (copied below), I have tried a couple of things and have found the following: Running a one line login script, eg net use * \\server\share with an echo command produces the following output: The syntax is incorrect. For help, type NET USE /? at the command prompt. Yet running the same script one the machine as soon after login as possible results in he

Hi all, I've got Samba with Winbind working on AIX 5.3 and 6.1 fairly well with Active Directory 2003. In fact, I'd say short of 2 very important services, it's working almost perfectly. Unfortunately, these 2 services are quite critical, and without them I'm afraid we'll have to resort to some sort of proprietary identity solution like Novell, which I'm not crazy about.

Op 06-11-2023 om 15:40 schreef Jonathan Hunter: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 14:32, Kees van Vloten <keesvanvloten at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Op 06-11-2023 om 14:58 schreef Jonathan Hunter: >>> Interestingly, I've now found that (on my current DCs, running >>> 4.18.5), ldbsearch *does* seem to return the expected result, but the >>> same query via

Hello, I have a strange problem with Samba and LDAP backend with the statement valid users = @group. The valid users = @username works great, but the @group oder +group statement does not work. But the users in the @group does never get access to the shares! I'm using Samba 3.2.5-4 on Debian Lenny the LDAP server is located at an Debian Etch system. But this ldap server works quite good.

On 01/28/15 14:04, Rowland Penny wrote: > On 28/01/15 18:45, Alberto Valdes Gonzalez wrote: >> Hi Rowland: >> >> voyager /data/company # ls -la folder1/ >> insgesamt 56 >> drwxrwxr-x+ 1 administrator dom?nen-benutzer 744 26. Sep 12:45 . >> drwxr-xr-x 9 root root 4096 25. Sep 23:33 .. >> drwxrwxr-x+ 1 user dom?nen-benutzer 200

Hello, I am not sure if this is a bug or a feature... When I use scp to copy a file to a filesystem which forces or masks permissions on new files (in my case a samba share) the resulting permissions depend on whether the owner had write access in the original permissions. If the owner did have write access then the copied file ends up with the permissions specified by the filesystem. If the