Setting up an anonymous public Samba Share to be accessed via Windows 7 and XBMC












8














So I should start by saying that I did this successfully less than a week ago and I had no trouble but I have since reformatted and reconfigured my server and now I'm having the hardest time remembering how I did it.



Here's what I had before and what I am trying to accomplish again.
I had a public samba share on Ubuntu server. Anyone on my network could access the share and it's contents simply by typing Hostname. No password necessary. Users who were not on the share's workgroup had read access but users who were on the workgroup had read/write access. (Windows 7)



Now, if I try to connect to Hostname I'm prompted for a username and password. If I enter the un pw I get full access but I shouldn't have to; my current settings are...



security = user
map to guest = bad user

[Shares]
path = /home/shares
available = yes
read only = no
browsable = yes
public = yes
writable = yes
guest ok = yes


I'm pulling my hair out over this one. Any suggestions?



EDIT:



Ugh, this is giving me such a hard time. I'm so close.



Here's what I've got.



I can get to the share from Windows 7 by going to start and typing HostnameSharename but I'm prompted for a username and password. I cant just leave it blank though because it will use my workgroup as the domain; so I enter for the username to clear it out and log in with a blank username and password. Great now I can access the files in the share.



Once I'm in, The workgroup configuration is working properly. If I'm on a computer with the the default WORKGROUP I can read and execute; a computer on my Home workgroup can read write and execute. So that's working.



The problem is, It shouldn't be asking for a password at all. It should be totally public to anyone on the network. I'm trying to share it with XBMC and it's not even showing up under smb in the file manager. I cant access it manually from XBMC either. I get a connection refused error.



Still pulling hair out over this. The worst part is the first time I did this about a week ago, I spent about 30 minutes on it and it worked perfectly. Now I've probably spent at least 4 hours and it's still not working.



Testparm:

Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf
rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384)
Processing section "[printers]"
Processing section "[print$]"
Processing section "[Shares]"
Loaded services file OK.
Server role: ROLE_STANDALONE
Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions

[global]
workgroup = FELLOWSHIP
server string = %h server (Samba, Ubuntu)
map to guest = Bad User
obey pam restrictions = Yes
pam password change = Yes
passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
passwd chat = *Entersnews*spassword:* %nn *Retypesnews*spassword:* %nn *passwordsupdatedssuccessfully* .
unix password sync = Yes
syslog = 0
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 1000
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
dns proxy = No
wins support = Yes
usershare allow guests = Yes
panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d
idmap config * : backend = tdb

[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /var/spool/samba
create mask = 0700
printable = Yes
print ok = Yes
browseable = No

[print$]
comment = Printer Drivers
path = /var/lib/samba/printers

[Shares]
path = /home/shares
read only = No
guest ok = Yes


UPDATE: So, the share is now available across my network regardless of the work group. Any Windows user who connects to my network can see the NAS under Netowork and access it.
The key was setting security to security = share. I know, it's deprecated, but it works and security = user and map to user = bad user wasn't working for me.



Anyway, now it seems that anyone who connects to the share get's unix global permissions for the directory, which is manageable, but I want users that are joined to the workgroup specified in smb.conf to get unix group permissions.



This way, I can set the directory to 775 and I will be able to write because I am joined to the workgroup but other users can only read and execute.










share|improve this question
























  • You should be able to map workgroup users to get specific permissions with a username map file: samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/smb.conf.5.html#USERNAMEMAP
    – Aaron
    Mar 19 '13 at 14:29
















8














So I should start by saying that I did this successfully less than a week ago and I had no trouble but I have since reformatted and reconfigured my server and now I'm having the hardest time remembering how I did it.



Here's what I had before and what I am trying to accomplish again.
I had a public samba share on Ubuntu server. Anyone on my network could access the share and it's contents simply by typing Hostname. No password necessary. Users who were not on the share's workgroup had read access but users who were on the workgroup had read/write access. (Windows 7)



Now, if I try to connect to Hostname I'm prompted for a username and password. If I enter the un pw I get full access but I shouldn't have to; my current settings are...



security = user
map to guest = bad user

[Shares]
path = /home/shares
available = yes
read only = no
browsable = yes
public = yes
writable = yes
guest ok = yes


I'm pulling my hair out over this one. Any suggestions?



EDIT:



Ugh, this is giving me such a hard time. I'm so close.



Here's what I've got.



I can get to the share from Windows 7 by going to start and typing HostnameSharename but I'm prompted for a username and password. I cant just leave it blank though because it will use my workgroup as the domain; so I enter for the username to clear it out and log in with a blank username and password. Great now I can access the files in the share.



Once I'm in, The workgroup configuration is working properly. If I'm on a computer with the the default WORKGROUP I can read and execute; a computer on my Home workgroup can read write and execute. So that's working.



The problem is, It shouldn't be asking for a password at all. It should be totally public to anyone on the network. I'm trying to share it with XBMC and it's not even showing up under smb in the file manager. I cant access it manually from XBMC either. I get a connection refused error.



Still pulling hair out over this. The worst part is the first time I did this about a week ago, I spent about 30 minutes on it and it worked perfectly. Now I've probably spent at least 4 hours and it's still not working.



Testparm:

Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf
rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384)
Processing section "[printers]"
Processing section "[print$]"
Processing section "[Shares]"
Loaded services file OK.
Server role: ROLE_STANDALONE
Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions

[global]
workgroup = FELLOWSHIP
server string = %h server (Samba, Ubuntu)
map to guest = Bad User
obey pam restrictions = Yes
pam password change = Yes
passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
passwd chat = *Entersnews*spassword:* %nn *Retypesnews*spassword:* %nn *passwordsupdatedssuccessfully* .
unix password sync = Yes
syslog = 0
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 1000
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
dns proxy = No
wins support = Yes
usershare allow guests = Yes
panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d
idmap config * : backend = tdb

[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /var/spool/samba
create mask = 0700
printable = Yes
print ok = Yes
browseable = No

[print$]
comment = Printer Drivers
path = /var/lib/samba/printers

[Shares]
path = /home/shares
read only = No
guest ok = Yes


UPDATE: So, the share is now available across my network regardless of the work group. Any Windows user who connects to my network can see the NAS under Netowork and access it.
The key was setting security to security = share. I know, it's deprecated, but it works and security = user and map to user = bad user wasn't working for me.



Anyway, now it seems that anyone who connects to the share get's unix global permissions for the directory, which is manageable, but I want users that are joined to the workgroup specified in smb.conf to get unix group permissions.



This way, I can set the directory to 775 and I will be able to write because I am joined to the workgroup but other users can only read and execute.










share|improve this question
























  • You should be able to map workgroup users to get specific permissions with a username map file: samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/smb.conf.5.html#USERNAMEMAP
    – Aaron
    Mar 19 '13 at 14:29














8












8








8


1





So I should start by saying that I did this successfully less than a week ago and I had no trouble but I have since reformatted and reconfigured my server and now I'm having the hardest time remembering how I did it.



Here's what I had before and what I am trying to accomplish again.
I had a public samba share on Ubuntu server. Anyone on my network could access the share and it's contents simply by typing Hostname. No password necessary. Users who were not on the share's workgroup had read access but users who were on the workgroup had read/write access. (Windows 7)



Now, if I try to connect to Hostname I'm prompted for a username and password. If I enter the un pw I get full access but I shouldn't have to; my current settings are...



security = user
map to guest = bad user

[Shares]
path = /home/shares
available = yes
read only = no
browsable = yes
public = yes
writable = yes
guest ok = yes


I'm pulling my hair out over this one. Any suggestions?



EDIT:



Ugh, this is giving me such a hard time. I'm so close.



Here's what I've got.



I can get to the share from Windows 7 by going to start and typing HostnameSharename but I'm prompted for a username and password. I cant just leave it blank though because it will use my workgroup as the domain; so I enter for the username to clear it out and log in with a blank username and password. Great now I can access the files in the share.



Once I'm in, The workgroup configuration is working properly. If I'm on a computer with the the default WORKGROUP I can read and execute; a computer on my Home workgroup can read write and execute. So that's working.



The problem is, It shouldn't be asking for a password at all. It should be totally public to anyone on the network. I'm trying to share it with XBMC and it's not even showing up under smb in the file manager. I cant access it manually from XBMC either. I get a connection refused error.



Still pulling hair out over this. The worst part is the first time I did this about a week ago, I spent about 30 minutes on it and it worked perfectly. Now I've probably spent at least 4 hours and it's still not working.



Testparm:

Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf
rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384)
Processing section "[printers]"
Processing section "[print$]"
Processing section "[Shares]"
Loaded services file OK.
Server role: ROLE_STANDALONE
Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions

[global]
workgroup = FELLOWSHIP
server string = %h server (Samba, Ubuntu)
map to guest = Bad User
obey pam restrictions = Yes
pam password change = Yes
passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
passwd chat = *Entersnews*spassword:* %nn *Retypesnews*spassword:* %nn *passwordsupdatedssuccessfully* .
unix password sync = Yes
syslog = 0
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 1000
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
dns proxy = No
wins support = Yes
usershare allow guests = Yes
panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d
idmap config * : backend = tdb

[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /var/spool/samba
create mask = 0700
printable = Yes
print ok = Yes
browseable = No

[print$]
comment = Printer Drivers
path = /var/lib/samba/printers

[Shares]
path = /home/shares
read only = No
guest ok = Yes


UPDATE: So, the share is now available across my network regardless of the work group. Any Windows user who connects to my network can see the NAS under Netowork and access it.
The key was setting security to security = share. I know, it's deprecated, but it works and security = user and map to user = bad user wasn't working for me.



Anyway, now it seems that anyone who connects to the share get's unix global permissions for the directory, which is manageable, but I want users that are joined to the workgroup specified in smb.conf to get unix group permissions.



This way, I can set the directory to 775 and I will be able to write because I am joined to the workgroup but other users can only read and execute.










share|improve this question















So I should start by saying that I did this successfully less than a week ago and I had no trouble but I have since reformatted and reconfigured my server and now I'm having the hardest time remembering how I did it.



Here's what I had before and what I am trying to accomplish again.
I had a public samba share on Ubuntu server. Anyone on my network could access the share and it's contents simply by typing Hostname. No password necessary. Users who were not on the share's workgroup had read access but users who were on the workgroup had read/write access. (Windows 7)



Now, if I try to connect to Hostname I'm prompted for a username and password. If I enter the un pw I get full access but I shouldn't have to; my current settings are...



security = user
map to guest = bad user

[Shares]
path = /home/shares
available = yes
read only = no
browsable = yes
public = yes
writable = yes
guest ok = yes


I'm pulling my hair out over this one. Any suggestions?



EDIT:



Ugh, this is giving me such a hard time. I'm so close.



Here's what I've got.



I can get to the share from Windows 7 by going to start and typing HostnameSharename but I'm prompted for a username and password. I cant just leave it blank though because it will use my workgroup as the domain; so I enter for the username to clear it out and log in with a blank username and password. Great now I can access the files in the share.



Once I'm in, The workgroup configuration is working properly. If I'm on a computer with the the default WORKGROUP I can read and execute; a computer on my Home workgroup can read write and execute. So that's working.



The problem is, It shouldn't be asking for a password at all. It should be totally public to anyone on the network. I'm trying to share it with XBMC and it's not even showing up under smb in the file manager. I cant access it manually from XBMC either. I get a connection refused error.



Still pulling hair out over this. The worst part is the first time I did this about a week ago, I spent about 30 minutes on it and it worked perfectly. Now I've probably spent at least 4 hours and it's still not working.



Testparm:

Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf
rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384)
Processing section "[printers]"
Processing section "[print$]"
Processing section "[Shares]"
Loaded services file OK.
Server role: ROLE_STANDALONE
Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions

[global]
workgroup = FELLOWSHIP
server string = %h server (Samba, Ubuntu)
map to guest = Bad User
obey pam restrictions = Yes
pam password change = Yes
passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
passwd chat = *Entersnews*spassword:* %nn *Retypesnews*spassword:* %nn *passwordsupdatedssuccessfully* .
unix password sync = Yes
syslog = 0
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 1000
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
dns proxy = No
wins support = Yes
usershare allow guests = Yes
panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d
idmap config * : backend = tdb

[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /var/spool/samba
create mask = 0700
printable = Yes
print ok = Yes
browseable = No

[print$]
comment = Printer Drivers
path = /var/lib/samba/printers

[Shares]
path = /home/shares
read only = No
guest ok = Yes


UPDATE: So, the share is now available across my network regardless of the work group. Any Windows user who connects to my network can see the NAS under Netowork and access it.
The key was setting security to security = share. I know, it's deprecated, but it works and security = user and map to user = bad user wasn't working for me.



Anyway, now it seems that anyone who connects to the share get's unix global permissions for the directory, which is manageable, but I want users that are joined to the workgroup specified in smb.conf to get unix group permissions.



This way, I can set the directory to 775 and I will be able to write because I am joined to the workgroup but other users can only read and execute.







server windows-7 samba xbmc






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 25 '13 at 19:34







George Spake

















asked Feb 19 '13 at 17:04









George SpakeGeorge Spake

161116




161116












  • You should be able to map workgroup users to get specific permissions with a username map file: samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/smb.conf.5.html#USERNAMEMAP
    – Aaron
    Mar 19 '13 at 14:29


















  • You should be able to map workgroup users to get specific permissions with a username map file: samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/smb.conf.5.html#USERNAMEMAP
    – Aaron
    Mar 19 '13 at 14:29
















You should be able to map workgroup users to get specific permissions with a username map file: samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/smb.conf.5.html#USERNAMEMAP
– Aaron
Mar 19 '13 at 14:29




You should be able to map workgroup users to get specific permissions with a username map file: samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/smb.conf.5.html#USERNAMEMAP
– Aaron
Mar 19 '13 at 14:29










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















7














This is how OpenElec is configured. Should do what you are asking for. (even if it is a year later...maybe it will help the next one) Just tweak the share settings as needed.



[global]
server string = YOURSERVERNAME
workgroup = WORKGROUP
netbios name = %h
security = share
guest account = root
socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536
smb ports = 445
max protocol = SMB2
min receivefile size = 16384
deadtime = 30
os level = 20
mangled names = no
syslog only = yes
syslog = 2
name resolve order = lmhosts wins bcast host
preferred master = auto
domain master = auto
local master = yes
printcap name = /dev/null
load printers = no
browseable = yes
writeable = yes
printable = no
encrypt passwords = true
enable core files = no
passdb backend = smbpasswd
smb encrypt = disabled
use sendfile = yes

[share]
comment = Share
path = /share
available = yes
browsable = yes
writable = yes
public = yes





share|improve this answer





















  • Thank you for this addition! I've been struggling to get a public share working with Windows 8.1 these settings did the trick.
    – davidmdem
    Dec 7 '14 at 0:15






  • 8




    URGH! "guest account = root". This means guest accounts are mapped to root, i.e. have unrestricted permissions to do anything. BE VERY CAREFUL! DRAGONS AHEAD!
    – DanielSmedegaardBuus
    Jan 14 '15 at 13:57



















5














Happened to stumble across this thread on the Ubuntu forums, and thought it might help. It explains the steps that happen behind the scenes:




In Windows the client's username and password is automatically sent
when it browses for shares - this is done without the user's
knowledge. That forces Samba to deal with the sent credentials even
though it's a guest share that requires no authentication.



When that username is passed Samba will search through it's password
database for that user:




  • If there is no match to the username the client user is tagged a "Bad User" and converted ( mapped ) to the guest account which by
    default is "nobody".


  • If it finds a match to the username and there is a samba password that matches the one sent by the Windows client then the Windows user
    automatically gains access although not as an anonymous user which is
    why you needed to add "force user = nobody" to your share definition.


  • If it finds a match to the username but the samba password does not match exactly the password that's automatically sent by the Windows
    client then you will be prompted for a password - even for a guest
    share.





Try adding force user = nobody to your share definition, and see if that does it.



Edit 02/20/2013:



Is testparm returning an exit code of something other than zero? All the same, I would go ahead and give that area of the config a good, hard look. Also, I'm not sure how case-sensitive smb.conf is, but every example I see (for example) of map to guest = Bad User has the B and U capitalized. Check-out the Samba man pages for the options you are using, and double-check everything.






share|improve this answer























  • Hey Bryce, Thanks for answering. I've managed to make a little progress since my original question but I'm still essentially having the same issue. I've managed to get my share (I'm calling it Shares) configured so that anyone on the workgroup, defined in the global seettings in smb.conf, can get right to it - No password necessary. Continuing in next comment...
    – George Spake
    Feb 20 '13 at 5:01










  • Here are the settings for the share: [Shares] path = /home/shares browsable = yes available = yes read only = no public = yes writable = yes guest ok = yes If I add force user = nobody it breaks and I can't access the share at all. Here's where it get's weird though; when I run testparm it dumps [Shares] path = /home/shares read only = no guest ok = yes So for some reason it's like it isn't seeing the public, writeable, available and browseable definitions. Could this be an indicator of where the problem is.
    – George Spake
    Feb 20 '13 at 5:03












  • @GeorgeSpake edit made...
    – Aaron
    Feb 20 '13 at 15:54






  • 1




    I think testparm just spits stuff out that way. Everything is lowercase in the conf file. I also discovered, and I need to verify this, that testparm only dumps non-default definitions which would explain why some of the results are omitted.
    – George Spake
    Feb 21 '13 at 1:52










  • Recent samba update 4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 on Ubuntu 14.04 broke my public share, force user = nobody is just the fix I needed to bring public share back
    – Antony
    Dec 19 '16 at 14:56



















0














It works for me in 30 seconds



Source:https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Standalone_Server



[global]
map to guest = Bad User



    log file = /var/log/samba/%m

log level = 1


[guest]
# This share allows anonymous (guest) access



    # without authentication!

path = /srv/samba/guest/

read only = no

guest ok = yes





share|improve this answer





























    0














    Since Google search brings us here and there is no clear answer, I summed it up.



    Below are the conditions required to make sure SMB clients will not be prompting for the username and password when accessing your Samba server:





    1. Add guest account = <owner-of-your-shares> under a [global] section. It is important that the owner account of your shares has an access to them. If you do not do this, Samba will assume the guest account is a nobody user which unlikely has an access to the data in your share.



      Alternatively, you can specify force user = <owner-of-your-share> under your [shareXYZ] block.




    2. Make sure your [shareXYZ] has guest ok = yes.



      Set browsable = yes but it is usually inherited from the [global] and is set to yes by default.




    Then, probably security = user should be also set (this is default when you do not have Active Directory set in your environment). Though, I am not sure whether this flag is required as I do not have AD in my environment.



    Of course, if you want the nobody user to work, then you can just chown -Rh 65534:65534 /yourshare, after that you will be fine just with the single setting guest ok = yes under your [shareXYZ].



    Note that having set rwx to others (chmod o+rwx /yourshare) did not let Samba with its nobody user into the share. I have checked this with strace -f -e chdir,geteuid,getegid -p <pid-of-the-parent-smbd-process>. Probably Samba just ignores the permissions set for the others? Not sure.






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "89"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f258284%2fsetting-up-an-anonymous-public-samba-share-to-be-accessed-via-windows-7-and-xbmc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      7














      This is how OpenElec is configured. Should do what you are asking for. (even if it is a year later...maybe it will help the next one) Just tweak the share settings as needed.



      [global]
      server string = YOURSERVERNAME
      workgroup = WORKGROUP
      netbios name = %h
      security = share
      guest account = root
      socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536
      smb ports = 445
      max protocol = SMB2
      min receivefile size = 16384
      deadtime = 30
      os level = 20
      mangled names = no
      syslog only = yes
      syslog = 2
      name resolve order = lmhosts wins bcast host
      preferred master = auto
      domain master = auto
      local master = yes
      printcap name = /dev/null
      load printers = no
      browseable = yes
      writeable = yes
      printable = no
      encrypt passwords = true
      enable core files = no
      passdb backend = smbpasswd
      smb encrypt = disabled
      use sendfile = yes

      [share]
      comment = Share
      path = /share
      available = yes
      browsable = yes
      writable = yes
      public = yes





      share|improve this answer





















      • Thank you for this addition! I've been struggling to get a public share working with Windows 8.1 these settings did the trick.
        – davidmdem
        Dec 7 '14 at 0:15






      • 8




        URGH! "guest account = root". This means guest accounts are mapped to root, i.e. have unrestricted permissions to do anything. BE VERY CAREFUL! DRAGONS AHEAD!
        – DanielSmedegaardBuus
        Jan 14 '15 at 13:57
















      7














      This is how OpenElec is configured. Should do what you are asking for. (even if it is a year later...maybe it will help the next one) Just tweak the share settings as needed.



      [global]
      server string = YOURSERVERNAME
      workgroup = WORKGROUP
      netbios name = %h
      security = share
      guest account = root
      socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536
      smb ports = 445
      max protocol = SMB2
      min receivefile size = 16384
      deadtime = 30
      os level = 20
      mangled names = no
      syslog only = yes
      syslog = 2
      name resolve order = lmhosts wins bcast host
      preferred master = auto
      domain master = auto
      local master = yes
      printcap name = /dev/null
      load printers = no
      browseable = yes
      writeable = yes
      printable = no
      encrypt passwords = true
      enable core files = no
      passdb backend = smbpasswd
      smb encrypt = disabled
      use sendfile = yes

      [share]
      comment = Share
      path = /share
      available = yes
      browsable = yes
      writable = yes
      public = yes





      share|improve this answer





















      • Thank you for this addition! I've been struggling to get a public share working with Windows 8.1 these settings did the trick.
        – davidmdem
        Dec 7 '14 at 0:15






      • 8




        URGH! "guest account = root". This means guest accounts are mapped to root, i.e. have unrestricted permissions to do anything. BE VERY CAREFUL! DRAGONS AHEAD!
        – DanielSmedegaardBuus
        Jan 14 '15 at 13:57














      7












      7








      7






      This is how OpenElec is configured. Should do what you are asking for. (even if it is a year later...maybe it will help the next one) Just tweak the share settings as needed.



      [global]
      server string = YOURSERVERNAME
      workgroup = WORKGROUP
      netbios name = %h
      security = share
      guest account = root
      socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536
      smb ports = 445
      max protocol = SMB2
      min receivefile size = 16384
      deadtime = 30
      os level = 20
      mangled names = no
      syslog only = yes
      syslog = 2
      name resolve order = lmhosts wins bcast host
      preferred master = auto
      domain master = auto
      local master = yes
      printcap name = /dev/null
      load printers = no
      browseable = yes
      writeable = yes
      printable = no
      encrypt passwords = true
      enable core files = no
      passdb backend = smbpasswd
      smb encrypt = disabled
      use sendfile = yes

      [share]
      comment = Share
      path = /share
      available = yes
      browsable = yes
      writable = yes
      public = yes





      share|improve this answer












      This is how OpenElec is configured. Should do what you are asking for. (even if it is a year later...maybe it will help the next one) Just tweak the share settings as needed.



      [global]
      server string = YOURSERVERNAME
      workgroup = WORKGROUP
      netbios name = %h
      security = share
      guest account = root
      socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536
      smb ports = 445
      max protocol = SMB2
      min receivefile size = 16384
      deadtime = 30
      os level = 20
      mangled names = no
      syslog only = yes
      syslog = 2
      name resolve order = lmhosts wins bcast host
      preferred master = auto
      domain master = auto
      local master = yes
      printcap name = /dev/null
      load printers = no
      browseable = yes
      writeable = yes
      printable = no
      encrypt passwords = true
      enable core files = no
      passdb backend = smbpasswd
      smb encrypt = disabled
      use sendfile = yes

      [share]
      comment = Share
      path = /share
      available = yes
      browsable = yes
      writable = yes
      public = yes






      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Jul 2 '14 at 20:41









      KenKen

      7111




      7111












      • Thank you for this addition! I've been struggling to get a public share working with Windows 8.1 these settings did the trick.
        – davidmdem
        Dec 7 '14 at 0:15






      • 8




        URGH! "guest account = root". This means guest accounts are mapped to root, i.e. have unrestricted permissions to do anything. BE VERY CAREFUL! DRAGONS AHEAD!
        – DanielSmedegaardBuus
        Jan 14 '15 at 13:57


















      • Thank you for this addition! I've been struggling to get a public share working with Windows 8.1 these settings did the trick.
        – davidmdem
        Dec 7 '14 at 0:15






      • 8




        URGH! "guest account = root". This means guest accounts are mapped to root, i.e. have unrestricted permissions to do anything. BE VERY CAREFUL! DRAGONS AHEAD!
        – DanielSmedegaardBuus
        Jan 14 '15 at 13:57
















      Thank you for this addition! I've been struggling to get a public share working with Windows 8.1 these settings did the trick.
      – davidmdem
      Dec 7 '14 at 0:15




      Thank you for this addition! I've been struggling to get a public share working with Windows 8.1 these settings did the trick.
      – davidmdem
      Dec 7 '14 at 0:15




      8




      8




      URGH! "guest account = root". This means guest accounts are mapped to root, i.e. have unrestricted permissions to do anything. BE VERY CAREFUL! DRAGONS AHEAD!
      – DanielSmedegaardBuus
      Jan 14 '15 at 13:57




      URGH! "guest account = root". This means guest accounts are mapped to root, i.e. have unrestricted permissions to do anything. BE VERY CAREFUL! DRAGONS AHEAD!
      – DanielSmedegaardBuus
      Jan 14 '15 at 13:57













      5














      Happened to stumble across this thread on the Ubuntu forums, and thought it might help. It explains the steps that happen behind the scenes:




      In Windows the client's username and password is automatically sent
      when it browses for shares - this is done without the user's
      knowledge. That forces Samba to deal with the sent credentials even
      though it's a guest share that requires no authentication.



      When that username is passed Samba will search through it's password
      database for that user:




      • If there is no match to the username the client user is tagged a "Bad User" and converted ( mapped ) to the guest account which by
        default is "nobody".


      • If it finds a match to the username and there is a samba password that matches the one sent by the Windows client then the Windows user
        automatically gains access although not as an anonymous user which is
        why you needed to add "force user = nobody" to your share definition.


      • If it finds a match to the username but the samba password does not match exactly the password that's automatically sent by the Windows
        client then you will be prompted for a password - even for a guest
        share.





      Try adding force user = nobody to your share definition, and see if that does it.



      Edit 02/20/2013:



      Is testparm returning an exit code of something other than zero? All the same, I would go ahead and give that area of the config a good, hard look. Also, I'm not sure how case-sensitive smb.conf is, but every example I see (for example) of map to guest = Bad User has the B and U capitalized. Check-out the Samba man pages for the options you are using, and double-check everything.






      share|improve this answer























      • Hey Bryce, Thanks for answering. I've managed to make a little progress since my original question but I'm still essentially having the same issue. I've managed to get my share (I'm calling it Shares) configured so that anyone on the workgroup, defined in the global seettings in smb.conf, can get right to it - No password necessary. Continuing in next comment...
        – George Spake
        Feb 20 '13 at 5:01










      • Here are the settings for the share: [Shares] path = /home/shares browsable = yes available = yes read only = no public = yes writable = yes guest ok = yes If I add force user = nobody it breaks and I can't access the share at all. Here's where it get's weird though; when I run testparm it dumps [Shares] path = /home/shares read only = no guest ok = yes So for some reason it's like it isn't seeing the public, writeable, available and browseable definitions. Could this be an indicator of where the problem is.
        – George Spake
        Feb 20 '13 at 5:03












      • @GeorgeSpake edit made...
        – Aaron
        Feb 20 '13 at 15:54






      • 1




        I think testparm just spits stuff out that way. Everything is lowercase in the conf file. I also discovered, and I need to verify this, that testparm only dumps non-default definitions which would explain why some of the results are omitted.
        – George Spake
        Feb 21 '13 at 1:52










      • Recent samba update 4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 on Ubuntu 14.04 broke my public share, force user = nobody is just the fix I needed to bring public share back
        – Antony
        Dec 19 '16 at 14:56
















      5














      Happened to stumble across this thread on the Ubuntu forums, and thought it might help. It explains the steps that happen behind the scenes:




      In Windows the client's username and password is automatically sent
      when it browses for shares - this is done without the user's
      knowledge. That forces Samba to deal with the sent credentials even
      though it's a guest share that requires no authentication.



      When that username is passed Samba will search through it's password
      database for that user:




      • If there is no match to the username the client user is tagged a "Bad User" and converted ( mapped ) to the guest account which by
        default is "nobody".


      • If it finds a match to the username and there is a samba password that matches the one sent by the Windows client then the Windows user
        automatically gains access although not as an anonymous user which is
        why you needed to add "force user = nobody" to your share definition.


      • If it finds a match to the username but the samba password does not match exactly the password that's automatically sent by the Windows
        client then you will be prompted for a password - even for a guest
        share.





      Try adding force user = nobody to your share definition, and see if that does it.



      Edit 02/20/2013:



      Is testparm returning an exit code of something other than zero? All the same, I would go ahead and give that area of the config a good, hard look. Also, I'm not sure how case-sensitive smb.conf is, but every example I see (for example) of map to guest = Bad User has the B and U capitalized. Check-out the Samba man pages for the options you are using, and double-check everything.






      share|improve this answer























      • Hey Bryce, Thanks for answering. I've managed to make a little progress since my original question but I'm still essentially having the same issue. I've managed to get my share (I'm calling it Shares) configured so that anyone on the workgroup, defined in the global seettings in smb.conf, can get right to it - No password necessary. Continuing in next comment...
        – George Spake
        Feb 20 '13 at 5:01










      • Here are the settings for the share: [Shares] path = /home/shares browsable = yes available = yes read only = no public = yes writable = yes guest ok = yes If I add force user = nobody it breaks and I can't access the share at all. Here's where it get's weird though; when I run testparm it dumps [Shares] path = /home/shares read only = no guest ok = yes So for some reason it's like it isn't seeing the public, writeable, available and browseable definitions. Could this be an indicator of where the problem is.
        – George Spake
        Feb 20 '13 at 5:03












      • @GeorgeSpake edit made...
        – Aaron
        Feb 20 '13 at 15:54






      • 1




        I think testparm just spits stuff out that way. Everything is lowercase in the conf file. I also discovered, and I need to verify this, that testparm only dumps non-default definitions which would explain why some of the results are omitted.
        – George Spake
        Feb 21 '13 at 1:52










      • Recent samba update 4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 on Ubuntu 14.04 broke my public share, force user = nobody is just the fix I needed to bring public share back
        – Antony
        Dec 19 '16 at 14:56














      5












      5








      5






      Happened to stumble across this thread on the Ubuntu forums, and thought it might help. It explains the steps that happen behind the scenes:




      In Windows the client's username and password is automatically sent
      when it browses for shares - this is done without the user's
      knowledge. That forces Samba to deal with the sent credentials even
      though it's a guest share that requires no authentication.



      When that username is passed Samba will search through it's password
      database for that user:




      • If there is no match to the username the client user is tagged a "Bad User" and converted ( mapped ) to the guest account which by
        default is "nobody".


      • If it finds a match to the username and there is a samba password that matches the one sent by the Windows client then the Windows user
        automatically gains access although not as an anonymous user which is
        why you needed to add "force user = nobody" to your share definition.


      • If it finds a match to the username but the samba password does not match exactly the password that's automatically sent by the Windows
        client then you will be prompted for a password - even for a guest
        share.





      Try adding force user = nobody to your share definition, and see if that does it.



      Edit 02/20/2013:



      Is testparm returning an exit code of something other than zero? All the same, I would go ahead and give that area of the config a good, hard look. Also, I'm not sure how case-sensitive smb.conf is, but every example I see (for example) of map to guest = Bad User has the B and U capitalized. Check-out the Samba man pages for the options you are using, and double-check everything.






      share|improve this answer














      Happened to stumble across this thread on the Ubuntu forums, and thought it might help. It explains the steps that happen behind the scenes:




      In Windows the client's username and password is automatically sent
      when it browses for shares - this is done without the user's
      knowledge. That forces Samba to deal with the sent credentials even
      though it's a guest share that requires no authentication.



      When that username is passed Samba will search through it's password
      database for that user:




      • If there is no match to the username the client user is tagged a "Bad User" and converted ( mapped ) to the guest account which by
        default is "nobody".


      • If it finds a match to the username and there is a samba password that matches the one sent by the Windows client then the Windows user
        automatically gains access although not as an anonymous user which is
        why you needed to add "force user = nobody" to your share definition.


      • If it finds a match to the username but the samba password does not match exactly the password that's automatically sent by the Windows
        client then you will be prompted for a password - even for a guest
        share.





      Try adding force user = nobody to your share definition, and see if that does it.



      Edit 02/20/2013:



      Is testparm returning an exit code of something other than zero? All the same, I would go ahead and give that area of the config a good, hard look. Also, I'm not sure how case-sensitive smb.conf is, but every example I see (for example) of map to guest = Bad User has the B and U capitalized. Check-out the Samba man pages for the options you are using, and double-check everything.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Feb 20 '13 at 15:54

























      answered Feb 19 '13 at 20:43









      AaronAaron

      5,47542341




      5,47542341












      • Hey Bryce, Thanks for answering. I've managed to make a little progress since my original question but I'm still essentially having the same issue. I've managed to get my share (I'm calling it Shares) configured so that anyone on the workgroup, defined in the global seettings in smb.conf, can get right to it - No password necessary. Continuing in next comment...
        – George Spake
        Feb 20 '13 at 5:01










      • Here are the settings for the share: [Shares] path = /home/shares browsable = yes available = yes read only = no public = yes writable = yes guest ok = yes If I add force user = nobody it breaks and I can't access the share at all. Here's where it get's weird though; when I run testparm it dumps [Shares] path = /home/shares read only = no guest ok = yes So for some reason it's like it isn't seeing the public, writeable, available and browseable definitions. Could this be an indicator of where the problem is.
        – George Spake
        Feb 20 '13 at 5:03












      • @GeorgeSpake edit made...
        – Aaron
        Feb 20 '13 at 15:54






      • 1




        I think testparm just spits stuff out that way. Everything is lowercase in the conf file. I also discovered, and I need to verify this, that testparm only dumps non-default definitions which would explain why some of the results are omitted.
        – George Spake
        Feb 21 '13 at 1:52










      • Recent samba update 4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 on Ubuntu 14.04 broke my public share, force user = nobody is just the fix I needed to bring public share back
        – Antony
        Dec 19 '16 at 14:56


















      • Hey Bryce, Thanks for answering. I've managed to make a little progress since my original question but I'm still essentially having the same issue. I've managed to get my share (I'm calling it Shares) configured so that anyone on the workgroup, defined in the global seettings in smb.conf, can get right to it - No password necessary. Continuing in next comment...
        – George Spake
        Feb 20 '13 at 5:01










      • Here are the settings for the share: [Shares] path = /home/shares browsable = yes available = yes read only = no public = yes writable = yes guest ok = yes If I add force user = nobody it breaks and I can't access the share at all. Here's where it get's weird though; when I run testparm it dumps [Shares] path = /home/shares read only = no guest ok = yes So for some reason it's like it isn't seeing the public, writeable, available and browseable definitions. Could this be an indicator of where the problem is.
        – George Spake
        Feb 20 '13 at 5:03












      • @GeorgeSpake edit made...
        – Aaron
        Feb 20 '13 at 15:54






      • 1




        I think testparm just spits stuff out that way. Everything is lowercase in the conf file. I also discovered, and I need to verify this, that testparm only dumps non-default definitions which would explain why some of the results are omitted.
        – George Spake
        Feb 21 '13 at 1:52










      • Recent samba update 4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 on Ubuntu 14.04 broke my public share, force user = nobody is just the fix I needed to bring public share back
        – Antony
        Dec 19 '16 at 14:56
















      Hey Bryce, Thanks for answering. I've managed to make a little progress since my original question but I'm still essentially having the same issue. I've managed to get my share (I'm calling it Shares) configured so that anyone on the workgroup, defined in the global seettings in smb.conf, can get right to it - No password necessary. Continuing in next comment...
      – George Spake
      Feb 20 '13 at 5:01




      Hey Bryce, Thanks for answering. I've managed to make a little progress since my original question but I'm still essentially having the same issue. I've managed to get my share (I'm calling it Shares) configured so that anyone on the workgroup, defined in the global seettings in smb.conf, can get right to it - No password necessary. Continuing in next comment...
      – George Spake
      Feb 20 '13 at 5:01












      Here are the settings for the share: [Shares] path = /home/shares browsable = yes available = yes read only = no public = yes writable = yes guest ok = yes If I add force user = nobody it breaks and I can't access the share at all. Here's where it get's weird though; when I run testparm it dumps [Shares] path = /home/shares read only = no guest ok = yes So for some reason it's like it isn't seeing the public, writeable, available and browseable definitions. Could this be an indicator of where the problem is.
      – George Spake
      Feb 20 '13 at 5:03






      Here are the settings for the share: [Shares] path = /home/shares browsable = yes available = yes read only = no public = yes writable = yes guest ok = yes If I add force user = nobody it breaks and I can't access the share at all. Here's where it get's weird though; when I run testparm it dumps [Shares] path = /home/shares read only = no guest ok = yes So for some reason it's like it isn't seeing the public, writeable, available and browseable definitions. Could this be an indicator of where the problem is.
      – George Spake
      Feb 20 '13 at 5:03














      @GeorgeSpake edit made...
      – Aaron
      Feb 20 '13 at 15:54




      @GeorgeSpake edit made...
      – Aaron
      Feb 20 '13 at 15:54




      1




      1




      I think testparm just spits stuff out that way. Everything is lowercase in the conf file. I also discovered, and I need to verify this, that testparm only dumps non-default definitions which would explain why some of the results are omitted.
      – George Spake
      Feb 21 '13 at 1:52




      I think testparm just spits stuff out that way. Everything is lowercase in the conf file. I also discovered, and I need to verify this, that testparm only dumps non-default definitions which would explain why some of the results are omitted.
      – George Spake
      Feb 21 '13 at 1:52












      Recent samba update 4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 on Ubuntu 14.04 broke my public share, force user = nobody is just the fix I needed to bring public share back
      – Antony
      Dec 19 '16 at 14:56




      Recent samba update 4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 on Ubuntu 14.04 broke my public share, force user = nobody is just the fix I needed to bring public share back
      – Antony
      Dec 19 '16 at 14:56











      0














      It works for me in 30 seconds



      Source:https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Standalone_Server



      [global]
      map to guest = Bad User



          log file = /var/log/samba/%m

      log level = 1


      [guest]
      # This share allows anonymous (guest) access



          # without authentication!

      path = /srv/samba/guest/

      read only = no

      guest ok = yes





      share|improve this answer


























        0














        It works for me in 30 seconds



        Source:https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Standalone_Server



        [global]
        map to guest = Bad User



            log file = /var/log/samba/%m

        log level = 1


        [guest]
        # This share allows anonymous (guest) access



            # without authentication!

        path = /srv/samba/guest/

        read only = no

        guest ok = yes





        share|improve this answer
























          0












          0








          0






          It works for me in 30 seconds



          Source:https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Standalone_Server



          [global]
          map to guest = Bad User



              log file = /var/log/samba/%m

          log level = 1


          [guest]
          # This share allows anonymous (guest) access



              # without authentication!

          path = /srv/samba/guest/

          read only = no

          guest ok = yes





          share|improve this answer












          It works for me in 30 seconds



          Source:https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Standalone_Server



          [global]
          map to guest = Bad User



              log file = /var/log/samba/%m

          log level = 1


          [guest]
          # This share allows anonymous (guest) access



              # without authentication!

          path = /srv/samba/guest/

          read only = no

          guest ok = yes






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 1 '18 at 23:17









          Gustavo ParedesGustavo Paredes

          212




          212























              0














              Since Google search brings us here and there is no clear answer, I summed it up.



              Below are the conditions required to make sure SMB clients will not be prompting for the username and password when accessing your Samba server:





              1. Add guest account = <owner-of-your-shares> under a [global] section. It is important that the owner account of your shares has an access to them. If you do not do this, Samba will assume the guest account is a nobody user which unlikely has an access to the data in your share.



                Alternatively, you can specify force user = <owner-of-your-share> under your [shareXYZ] block.




              2. Make sure your [shareXYZ] has guest ok = yes.



                Set browsable = yes but it is usually inherited from the [global] and is set to yes by default.




              Then, probably security = user should be also set (this is default when you do not have Active Directory set in your environment). Though, I am not sure whether this flag is required as I do not have AD in my environment.



              Of course, if you want the nobody user to work, then you can just chown -Rh 65534:65534 /yourshare, after that you will be fine just with the single setting guest ok = yes under your [shareXYZ].



              Note that having set rwx to others (chmod o+rwx /yourshare) did not let Samba with its nobody user into the share. I have checked this with strace -f -e chdir,geteuid,getegid -p <pid-of-the-parent-smbd-process>. Probably Samba just ignores the permissions set for the others? Not sure.






              share|improve this answer


























                0














                Since Google search brings us here and there is no clear answer, I summed it up.



                Below are the conditions required to make sure SMB clients will not be prompting for the username and password when accessing your Samba server:





                1. Add guest account = <owner-of-your-shares> under a [global] section. It is important that the owner account of your shares has an access to them. If you do not do this, Samba will assume the guest account is a nobody user which unlikely has an access to the data in your share.



                  Alternatively, you can specify force user = <owner-of-your-share> under your [shareXYZ] block.




                2. Make sure your [shareXYZ] has guest ok = yes.



                  Set browsable = yes but it is usually inherited from the [global] and is set to yes by default.




                Then, probably security = user should be also set (this is default when you do not have Active Directory set in your environment). Though, I am not sure whether this flag is required as I do not have AD in my environment.



                Of course, if you want the nobody user to work, then you can just chown -Rh 65534:65534 /yourshare, after that you will be fine just with the single setting guest ok = yes under your [shareXYZ].



                Note that having set rwx to others (chmod o+rwx /yourshare) did not let Samba with its nobody user into the share. I have checked this with strace -f -e chdir,geteuid,getegid -p <pid-of-the-parent-smbd-process>. Probably Samba just ignores the permissions set for the others? Not sure.






                share|improve this answer
























                  0












                  0








                  0






                  Since Google search brings us here and there is no clear answer, I summed it up.



                  Below are the conditions required to make sure SMB clients will not be prompting for the username and password when accessing your Samba server:





                  1. Add guest account = <owner-of-your-shares> under a [global] section. It is important that the owner account of your shares has an access to them. If you do not do this, Samba will assume the guest account is a nobody user which unlikely has an access to the data in your share.



                    Alternatively, you can specify force user = <owner-of-your-share> under your [shareXYZ] block.




                  2. Make sure your [shareXYZ] has guest ok = yes.



                    Set browsable = yes but it is usually inherited from the [global] and is set to yes by default.




                  Then, probably security = user should be also set (this is default when you do not have Active Directory set in your environment). Though, I am not sure whether this flag is required as I do not have AD in my environment.



                  Of course, if you want the nobody user to work, then you can just chown -Rh 65534:65534 /yourshare, after that you will be fine just with the single setting guest ok = yes under your [shareXYZ].



                  Note that having set rwx to others (chmod o+rwx /yourshare) did not let Samba with its nobody user into the share. I have checked this with strace -f -e chdir,geteuid,getegid -p <pid-of-the-parent-smbd-process>. Probably Samba just ignores the permissions set for the others? Not sure.






                  share|improve this answer












                  Since Google search brings us here and there is no clear answer, I summed it up.



                  Below are the conditions required to make sure SMB clients will not be prompting for the username and password when accessing your Samba server:





                  1. Add guest account = <owner-of-your-shares> under a [global] section. It is important that the owner account of your shares has an access to them. If you do not do this, Samba will assume the guest account is a nobody user which unlikely has an access to the data in your share.



                    Alternatively, you can specify force user = <owner-of-your-share> under your [shareXYZ] block.




                  2. Make sure your [shareXYZ] has guest ok = yes.



                    Set browsable = yes but it is usually inherited from the [global] and is set to yes by default.




                  Then, probably security = user should be also set (this is default when you do not have Active Directory set in your environment). Though, I am not sure whether this flag is required as I do not have AD in my environment.



                  Of course, if you want the nobody user to work, then you can just chown -Rh 65534:65534 /yourshare, after that you will be fine just with the single setting guest ok = yes under your [shareXYZ].



                  Note that having set rwx to others (chmod o+rwx /yourshare) did not let Samba with its nobody user into the share. I have checked this with strace -f -e chdir,geteuid,getegid -p <pid-of-the-parent-smbd-process>. Probably Samba just ignores the permissions set for the others? Not sure.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 27 '18 at 15:14









                  Andrey ArapovAndrey Arapov

                  412




                  412






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f258284%2fsetting-up-an-anonymous-public-samba-share-to-be-accessed-via-windows-7-and-xbmc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

                      Mangá

                       ⁒  ․,‪⁊‑⁙ ⁖, ⁇‒※‌, †,⁖‗‌⁝    ‾‸⁘,‖⁔⁣,⁂‾
”‑,‥–,‬ ,⁀‹⁋‴⁑ ‒ ,‴⁋”‼ ⁨,‷⁔„ ‰′,‐‚ ‥‡‎“‷⁃⁨⁅⁣,⁔
⁇‘⁔⁡⁏⁌⁡‿‶‏⁨ ⁣⁕⁖⁨⁩⁥‽⁀  ‴‬⁜‟ ⁃‣‧⁕‮ …‍⁨‴ ⁩,⁚⁖‫ ,‵ ⁀,‮⁝‣‣ ⁑  ⁂– ․, ‾‽ ‏⁁“⁗‸ ‾… ‹‡⁌⁎‸‘ ‡⁏⁌‪ ‵⁛ ‎⁨ ―⁦⁤⁄⁕