>From what I understand, Share-level security basically leaves you open
to password brute force initiated by your own daemon.
No good.
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 17:12 +0000, Anders Østerholt wrote:
> There's no problem with setting the default level to share!
>
> When you add a shared folder, you can have it read only. And the people
> having problem with editing smb.conf is probably home users not wanting
> any heavy security anyway. People needing security probably knows how to
> edit the config file.
>
> At least a checkbox in shares-admin for setting the level to share would
> be nice to have.
>
> ** Attachment added: "shares-admin mockup"
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/9464149/Skjermdump-Shared%20Folders.png
>
>From what I understand, Share-level security basically leaves you open
to password brute force initiated by your own daemon.
No good.
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 17:12 +0000, Anders Østerholt wrote: launchpadlibrar ian.net/ 9464149/ Skjermdump- Shared% 20Folders. png
> There's no problem with setting the default level to share!
>
> When you add a shared folder, you can have it read only. And the people
> having problem with editing smb.conf is probably home users not wanting
> any heavy security anyway. People needing security probably knows how to
> edit the config file.
>
> At least a checkbox in shares-admin for setting the level to share would
> be nice to have.
>
> ** Attachment added: "shares-admin mockup"
> http://
>