Web lists-archives.com

Re: [Samba] username map with “security = ads”




Not tested, just brain farts ;-)

Setup a member, Allow guest access.  ( in global : guest ok = yes ) 
This allow local users to access the server ( not shares ) 

On the shares 
Deny "domain users" and/or authenticated users. 
Allow the local group for local users. 

Not tested but technicaly is could work. 
Which is almost the same as a standalone with and without user authentication. 


Greetz, 

Louis




> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens 
> Philipp Gesang via samba
> Verzonden: donderdag 2 mei 2019 14:28
> Aan: Rowland Penny
> CC: samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] username map with “security = ads”
> 
> -<| Quoting Rowland Penny via samba <rpenny@xxxxxxxxx>, on 
> Thursday, 2019-05-02 01:12:41 PM |>-
> > On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:34:01 +0200
> > Philipp Gesang <philipp.gesang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Rowland,
> > 
> > > >   
> > > > > Now our use case requires for the machine to be 
> joined but also
> > > > > grant access to shares to local users.  
> > > > 
> > > > Not going to happen, because your local users will be 
> unknown to the
> > > > domain.  
> > > 
> > > That’s the point: The shares aren’t intended for domain users to
> > > access.
> > 
> > If this is a domain member, then ONLY the domain users will 
> be allowed
> > access to the shares.
> 
> with
> 
>   server role = member server
>   security = user
> 
> I can logon with smbclient as local user using username%password.
> With
> 
>   server role = member server
>   security = ads
> 
> and all other things being equal, I can’t (“session setup failed:
> NT_STATUS_NO_LOGON_SERVERS”). This is from a client without any
> domain awareness whatsoever.
> 
> > > > Have you considered setting Samba up a standalone server ?  
> > > 
> > > Samba is currently functioning as a standalone server.
> > > Additionally we wish to leverage the AD member functionality to
> > > join those boxes to AD domains. The credentials acquired that way
> > > (keytabs) are then used by other services to have domain accounts
> > > (people and hosts) authenticate against AD. The shares however
> > > have a different purpose and can’t be switched to require AD
> > > without breaking existing deployments.
> > > 
> > > A second smb.conf is an acceptable workaround, I think.
> > 
> > The only thing that I think that might work is not just one
> > smb.conf, but double everything (except nmbd), one joined to the
> > domain and one not.
> 
> Namspacing the two sambas could be an option.
> 
> > I personally wouldn't do anything like this, it is fraught with
> > potential problems and dangers.
> > 
> > Whilst you do not want to put your local users into AD, 
> this might be
> > your easiest and best way out of your problem. Create an AD 
> group and
> > add all your 'local unix users' to this group, then only 
> allow access
> > to the Samba shares to members of this group.
> 
> Wouldn’t that also imply that accesses need to authenticate
> against AD?
> 
> Philipp
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
> 


-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba