Want XP Pro file shares accessible on net when computer locked

[Guest]

Have peer-peer simple file share office network, some XP, some old 98
machines. When the designated "server" XP Pro machine goes into screensaver
resume with password mode, locking the machine, apparently the other machines
on the network no longer have access to the network shares on the locked
machine. All the machines probably logon via the guest account, there being
no user accounts created for the remote machines. I want the shares on the
server available to the network when the server is locked. Can that be done?
Appreciate comments.

 

[Chuck]

Have peer-peer simple file share office network, some XP, some old 98
machines. When the designated "server" XP Pro machine goes into screensaver
resume with password mode, locking the machine, apparently the other machines
on the network no longer have access to the network shares on the locked
machine. All the machines probably logon via the guest account, there being
no user accounts created for the remote machines. I want the shares on the
server available to the network when the server is locked. Can that be done?
Appreciate comments.

Check power setting on the network card, make sure it's not allowed to turn off
to save power.

Check restrictanonymous:
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/07/restrictanonymous-and-your-server.html>

 

[Guest]

Thanks, I'll check that next time I'm at that office. However, that doesn't
address the implicit problem of a screensaver setting for resume with
password prompt locking the computer, and that lock stopping access to
network shares by other computers (unless they had an administrative
privilege logon account presumably). Are you saying that you don't think Win
XP Pro computer lock blocks network access to file shares by annonymous/guest
accounts over the net?

 

[Chuck]

Thanks, I'll check that next time I'm at that office. However, that doesn't
address the implicit problem of a screensaver setting for resume with
password prompt locking the computer, and that lock stopping access to
network shares by other computers (unless they had an administrative
privilege logon account presumably). Are you saying that you don't think Win
XP Pro computer lock blocks network access to file shares by annonymous/guest
accounts over the net?

Servers should NOT change access rules when the screensaver kicks in. Real
servers don't. But maybe there's a hook in Windows that makes Windows XP (NOT a
server OS) do that.

Or maybe it's the computer shutting the network card down when the screen saver
kicks in.

First see if either setting fixes it. If something does, then try and figure
out why it should do that. Fix then evaluate. A variant of Occam's Razor.

 

[Guest]

I think your talking more heuristics (trial and error) than shaving competing
theories down to the simplest with old Occam's Razor <grin>. Seriously
though, I did see some threads elsewhere in TechNet community about people
using this screensaver password resume windows lock for just that purpose,
i.e., to lock out network access as well as local. We're using simple file
sharing on the XP Pro "server" and therefore no accounts set up on that
machine corresponding to the various network client PC's. So, they have to be
gaining access to the XP Pro server via the guest account and authenticating
via the local SAM on the XP Pro machine. Because the windows lock blocks any
access to files or programs except for the locking user or a user with
administrative privileges, it seems likely that the lock would block network
access in this context. I do agree I need to get in there and do some testing
(troubleshooting, as scientific investigation or theory forumulation, should
follow cycles of observation, analysis, theory and experimental test of
theory--if you have competing theories that explain the observations equally
well then you can choose the simpler per Occam)--you can theorize about the
number of teeth in a camel's mouth at length and never know for sure till you
take a look in the beast's mouth. I'll keep you posted (literally, <grin>).

 

[Chuck]

I think your talking more heuristics (trial and error) than shaving competing
theories down to the simplest with old Occam's Razor <grin>. Seriously
though, I did see some threads elsewhere in TechNet community about people
using this screensaver password resume windows lock for just that purpose,
i.e., to lock out network access as well as local. We're using simple file
sharing on the XP Pro "server" and therefore no accounts set up on that
machine corresponding to the various network client PC's. So, they have to be
gaining access to the XP Pro server via the guest account and authenticating
via the local SAM on the XP Pro machine. Because the windows lock blocks any
access to files or programs except for the locking user or a user with
administrative privileges, it seems likely that the lock would block network
access in this context. I do agree I need to get in there and do some testing
(troubleshooting, as scientific investigation or theory forumulation, should
follow cycles of observation, analysis, theory and experimental test of
theory--if you have competing theories that explain the observations equally
well then you can choose the simpler per Occam)--you can theorize about the
number of teeth in a camel's mouth at length and never know for sure till you
take a look in the beast's mouth. I'll keep you posted (literally, <grin>).

Educated trial and error, and to update one or more articles.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/file-sharing-under-windows-xp.html>
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/troubleshooting-network-neighborhood.html>

Please do keep us posted. What you learn may help others (figuratively and
literally).

 

[Guest]

I called the office today, spoke to the relevant girl, and was told that the
problem was actually that before we upgraded the "server" from XP Home to XP
Pro they could turn on her computer in the morning before she arrived and
logged in and everyone on the network had access to the network shares on her
pc anyway. Now it is necessary that she logon first. She told me that when
the computer goes into screensaver password resume lock they can still access
the network shares (DOH!!). Apparently they don't want her private files
available to others locally so they don't want to share her logon. I told her
next time I was in I would set up the Guest account so they could logon
(locally as Guest) the XP Pro "server" and thereby use the network shares and
that I would set it up so her personal files were inaccesible/private to the
Guest.

 

[Chuck]

I called the office today, spoke to the relevant girl, and was told that the
problem was actually that before we upgraded the "server" from XP Home to XP
Pro they could turn on her computer in the morning before she arrived and
logged in and everyone on the network had access to the network shares on her
pc anyway. Now it is necessary that she logon first. She told me that when
the computer goes into screensaver password resume lock they can still access
the network shares (DOH!!). Apparently they don't want her private files
available to others locally so they don't want to share her logon. I told her
next time I was in I would set up the Guest account so they could logon
(locally as Guest) the XP Pro "server" and thereby use the network shares and
that I would set it up so her personal files were inaccesible/private to the
Guest.

Thanks for the clarification. I shall note the complications possibly caused
when using a computer a server, and as a personal computer.

 

[Guest]

I thought those who might have followed this thread would find the latest
update of interest. I went back into the office under discussion and set up a
local Guest account on the Windows XP SP2 "server" in order to make network
shares on the machine available to the other office workers before the
computer operator came in to work. However, the network shares were
inaccessible with only a Guest user logged on at that PC. This was surprising
to me--the shared folder was not in the personal folder area of the original
admin account user, but elsewhere on the hard drive. I created another
administrator level account, made the machine's original account user's
folders private so they wouldn't be accesible to the other logon (although an
administrator with knowledge could change her password and gain access, but
that is not going to be a problem), and the network shares were accessible
under the new admin account login.

 

[Chuck]

I thought those who might have followed this thread would find the latest
update of interest. I went back into the office under discussion and set up a
local Guest account on the Windows XP SP2 "server" in order to make network
shares on the machine available to the other office workers before the
computer operator came in to work. However, the network shares were
inaccessible with only a Guest user logged on at that PC. This was surprising
to me--the shared folder was not in the personal folder area of the original
admin account user, but elsewhere on the hard drive. I created another
administrator level account, made the machine's original account user's
folders private so they wouldn't be accesible to the other logon (although an
administrator with knowledge could change her password and gain access, but
that is not going to be a problem), and the network shares were accessible
under the new admin account login.

This problem has come up from time to time, and right now there are several
known solutions, when you have problems with a server running XP Pro, that was
upgraded from XP Home:
# Do as you've done, create a new account.
# Delete and recreate the share.
# Turn off Simple File Sharing and change permissions on the share.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/file-sharing-under-windows-xp.html#Help>

BTW, posting your email address openly will get you more unwanted email, than
wanted email. Learn to munge your email address properly, to keep yourself a
bit safer when posting to open forums. Protect yourself and the rest of the
internet - read this article.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-to-post-on-usenet-and-encourage.html#Munging>

 

[Guest]

Thanks, Chuck. On the spam munging though, I just looked at the article you
suggested and they seem to agree that appending garbage to my email (as in
(e-mail address removed)(cramyerspam)) will indeed foil automated spam harvesting
spiders (although I coud envision a spider programmer stopping at any
parenthesis following an otherwise properly formed email address, but this
gets into an impossible game of cat and mouse regarding what might indeed be
appended, or inserted), which is what I am worried about primarily. I see no
difference in my method and one of the examples they gave,
(e-mail address removed). Right or wrong?

 

[Chuck]

Thanks, Chuck. On the spam munging though, I just looked at the article you
suggested and they seem to agree that appending garbage to my email (as in
(e-mail address removed)(cramyerspam)) will indeed foil automated spam harvesting
spiders (although I coud envision a spider programmer stopping at any
parenthesis following an otherwise properly formed email address, but this
gets into an impossible game of cat and mouse regarding what might indeed be
appended, or inserted), which is what I am worried about primarily. I see no
difference in my method and one of the examples they gave,
(e-mail address removed). Right or wrong?

If you own "vision AT att DOT net", then you could munge it as
"(e-mail address removed)", or maybe "(e-mail address removed). But
"(e-mail address removed)(cramyerspan)" doesn't do anything but stick garbage on the end
of "vision AT att DOT net".

No spam harvesting spider will be fooled in the slightest - the "(cramyerspam)"
doesn't become part of the address at all. Try "vision AT att DOT
netcramyerspam". IFF you own the "vision" mailbox at att DOT net, that is.

On the other hand, anything AT anything DOT invalid is good. The "DOT invalid"
will never be used, just as "example DOT anything".
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html>