Talking about shared folder permissions, I had a quick question.
We too have been using the standard practice of leaving the share
permissions open and defining security to limit access. Now we need to move
some of these shares to an archive server, where we still want to retain the
security permissions but have this share as a READ-ONLY share, without
having to change the security permissions. Will setting the share
permissions to authenticated user's read, list execute and retain the
security tab as the source work?
Basically the idea is that no one should write to the archive share, but
should have the same access rights as the original share.
-G
"Bart Denison [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> The answer is - both!
> I have found that it is easier to leave the share permissions (network
> access) pretty open, and use the Security tab (file system access) to
limit
> access to specific groups or individuals. Granting access via the share
tab
> will only allow a user to open the shared folder. If the user is not
> granted access on the security tab also, they will get access denied
trying
> to list the files since they do not have access to the file system as well
> as the share. Likewise, access granted only on the security tab will also
> yield access denied to remote users since they don't have network access
to
> the share, only local access.
>
> --
> Bart Denison [MSFT]
> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
> no rights. Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias
is
> for newsgroup purposes only.
>
> "Jim Hartigan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:0e8801c381fc$4ec80960$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Attempting to end a debate! Should permissions to a
> > server shared folder be applied from the Security tab or
> > from the Shared tab and click permissions. Or can someone
> > explain the difference. Thanks
>
>
|
Similar Threads
