similar to: Access to shares is denied after upgrading from 3.6.3 (openSUSE 12.1) to 4.1.17 (openSUSE 13.2)

Hi Marc, Am 19.03.2015 um 22:53 schrieb Marc Muehlfeld: > Am 19.03.2015 um 14:35 schrieb Nissl Reinhard: >> When I try to access share \\platon\root<file:///\\platon\root> as fee\administrator I get the following: >> >> platon:~ # smbclient -c dir -W fee -U administrator%secret //platon/root >> Domain=[FEE] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba

Hi, after upgrading samba from 4.1.17 to 4.1.19 on OpenSuSE 13.2, any shares offered by this machine can nolonger be accessed, when these shares contain an entry "force group" which specifies a local unix group and when there exists a unix user with the same name. Here's an excerpt from smb.conf: [FactWork] comment = FactWork-Downloadportal path =

On 20/03/15 06:11, Reinhard Ni?l wrote: > Hi Marc, > > Am 19.03.2015 um 22:53 schrieb Marc Muehlfeld: > >> Am 19.03.2015 um 14:35 schrieb Nissl Reinhard: >>> When I try to access share \\platon\root<file:///\\platon\root> as >>> fee\administrator I get the following: >>> >>> platon:~ # smbclient -c dir -W fee -U administrator%secret

Hi Rowland, Am 20.03.2015 um 12:45 schrieb Rowland Penny: > Try replacing the global part of your smb.conf with this: > > [global] > netbios name = PLATON > workgroup = FEE > security = ADS > realm = FEE.DE > dedicated keytab file = /etc/krb5.keytab > kerberos method = secrets and keytab > server string = Web- und

can you try this also copy past it, but set the admin pass fist. then whats the output. SAMBA_NT_ADMIN_PASS="PUT_YOUR-ADMINISTRATOR_PASSWORD_HERE" SETFQDN=`hostname -f` echo "NT Authentication test" echo ${SAMBA_NT_ADMIN_PASS}| smbclient //localhost/netlogon -U Administrator -c 'ls' echo "Kerberos Authentication" echo ${SAMBA_NT_ADMIN_PASS} | kinit

Hi Rowland, Am 20.03.2015 um 10:33 schrieb Rowland Penny: >>> ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<--- smb.conf >>> ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<--- >>> >>> # smb.conf is the main Samba configuration file. You find a full >>> commented >>> # version at /usr/share/doc/packages/samba/examples/smb.conf.SUSE if the

On 20/03/15 13:35, Reinhard Ni?l wrote: > Hi Rowland, > > Am 20.03.2015 um 12:45 schrieb Rowland Penny: > >> Try replacing the global part of your smb.conf with this: >> >> [global] >> netbios name = PLATON >> workgroup = FEE >> security = ADS >> realm = FEE.DE >> dedicated keytab file = /etc/krb5.keytab

Hi Rowland, Am 20.03.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rowland Penny: >>> Try replacing the global part of your smb.conf with this: >>> >>> [global] >>> netbios name = PLATON >>> workgroup = FEE >>> security = ADS >>> realm = FEE.DE >>> dedicated keytab file = /etc/krb5.keytab >>>

On 20/03/15 11:16, Reinhard Ni?l wrote: > Hi Rowland, > > Am 20.03.2015 um 10:33 schrieb Rowland Penny: > >>>> ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<--- smb.conf >>>> ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<--- >>>> >>>> # smb.conf is the main Samba configuration file. You find a full >>>> commented

On 20/03/15 17:22, Reinhard Ni?l wrote: > Hi Rowland, > > Am 20.03.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rowland Penny: > >>>> Try replacing the global part of your smb.conf with this: >>>> >>>> [global] >>>> netbios name = PLATON >>>> workgroup = FEE >>>> security = ADS >>>> realm = FEE.DE

Shifting from a v2 samba server to v3 - Read documentation and googled LOTS but can't seem to find the bits that apply to my simple(?) server with regards to groups. # rpm -qi samba Version : 3.0.28 Vendor: Red Hat, Inc. Release : 1.el5_2.1 Source RPM: samba-3.0.28-1.el5_2.1.src.rpm Samba on server (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2) IS MOSTLY WORKING... home directories

I am moving from a server from running Red Hat 7.2 (with ProFTP) to Centos 3 (with vsFTP). There is a setting in ProFTP that lets me set the default ftp login directory for a specific user and I would like to do the same with vsFTP. The reason being is I have a 'webadmin' user that I use for uploading web content. I am thinking I could make the home directory of the webadmin /var/www in

Hi everyone, I was wondering what the common practice for handling multiple db users with fine grained privileges on multiple databases is. Against the often read guideline for rails users to keep with a single db as "more dbs don''t really make sense anyway", my opinion is that it DOES make sense to use more than one db schema for a number of reasons that I won''t

Hi I get huge memory leaks using LLVM IRBuilder (trunk version) Basically I recreate a function over and over again, and pretty sure that my code doesn't cause the leak while(true) { Function *fn = module->getFunction(name); if (fn) fn->eraseFromParent(); fn = cast<Function>(module->getOrInsertFunction(name, fnType)); fillFunction(fn); //Fill function with

Hello I''ve now read a lot about application-level authentication in Rails, but I need to do database-level authentication. The reason is that my database needs to have the current_user (database current_user, not current_user defined in an ActiveRecord Model) set to execute triggers for automatically updating audit tables. So it is not enough to have a session check against a User

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I think that the approach of using a

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:06 PM Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at

Hello I have the following scenario, and I am not sure why the performance is so bad (take 30 minutes to complete with very simple generated functions): 1. Create module 2. Do something like EE = EngineBuilder(theModule).setEngineKind(EngineKind::JIT).create(); 3. Create a function in the module: theModule->getOrInsertFunction(..) 4. Execute 1000 times the function using

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:06 PM Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Peter

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I think that the approach of using a section to record address >> significance is a good one. I'm guessing it will have its own section >> type and format? If