 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / Setup and Deployment / January 2008XP folder sharing hell......
I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. PC1 can see all shared folders on PC2 but cannot access any of them. I always get "PC1\foldername is not accessible. You might not have permission to use this network resource. Contact the administrator of this server to find out if you have access permissions." PC2 can access folders on PC1. PC3 has the same problems with PC2 as PC1. PC2 can access some of the shared folders on PC1. I have tried installing ALL of the available clients, services and protocols for the ethernet adapter on all PCs. I have tried turning off the Windows (and Eset) firewalls. I have tried just about everything I know to share folders on PC2 to no avail. Anybody have any ideas? >I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Anybody have any ideas? Last time I had similar problems, it was due to services being disabled / not running. Go start > run > services.msc and check for disabled items. I believe it was 'network DDE' that I started and things started working... Worth a try. -Jeepers Jeepers Creepers "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk: > .. >>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -Jeepers BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! You f.cking useless sheepfucker.  SignatureYour mother was an alien lunch room attendant who gave blow-jobs to passers-by under the influence of alcohol. >>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Worth a try. Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it ...but no luck. jim >>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > -Jeepers Just an update.....I found the culprit. I don't know why or how it created this nightmare yet - but I have fired off a note to the publishers to try and get an answer. The application that completely screwed my networking up was Eset's NOD32 Antivirus and Smart Security Suite. Once removed from all PCs, the network works like a charm. This is not the first bad run-in I've had with Eset's NOD32 and Smart Security. On several occassions I have seen Eset's software break applications by blocking them from running with absolutely NO warning or indication that it had done anything at all. On other occassions I have seen NOD32 toss up red threat screens to customers only to see that there was no "clean" or "quarantine" buttons at all and nothing on the blaring red threat screen said that NOD32 knew what to do or was going to take any action at all. All you could do was close the threat screen and wonder if you were protected. It's sad really. NOD32 used to do one thing - kill viruses - and it did it well. With all of the crap they are cramming into NOD32, they have created a monster of a headache to deal with. And, no documentation of any consequence comes with the product. When an application blocks something or cleans something or quarantines something, wouldn't it be great of it told you what it did? Eset's applications don't. they keep you guessing and wasting valuable time and resources trying to find problems that appear to be network or application related - NOT security related. Now, whenever I see ANY problem on a PC with Eset's products installed, my first course of action will be to uninstall Eset's software before I change a single setting. Thanks for all of the suggestions and watch yourself arounf Eset's NOD32 and "Smart Security". jim >On other occassions I have >seen NOD32 toss up red threat screens to customers only to see that there >was no "clean" or "quarantine" buttons at all and nothing on the blaring red >threat screen said that NOD32 knew what to do or was going to take any >action at all. One time I was given a choice to suspend NOD32 for 10 minutes ( along with clean and quarantine); that's handy if you actually wish to download a virus or check one out. I don't get that option anymore. Other than that, I haven't had a problem with NOD32 at all, never tried the security suite. SignatureDeadlock http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5781/deadlocknajkcomafarialibh3.jpg This topic is crap!!! I have the same problem and I think that is something like Jeepers says. Please, talk only about this problem, I want to solve it!!!!! > >I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > -Jeepers Try :- 1) Adding each folder as a network place manually under "My Network Places" 2) Go to the folder that needs to be shared and right-click, Properties. Go to the "Sharing" tab and make sure the relevant checkboxes are ticked. SignatureMark Jacobs DK Computing http://www.dkcomputing.co.uk Thanks, but problem persists. When this happens I can’t see my shared folders on my network places too... I think is something that nod32 does when i try to uninstall it. > Try :- > 1) Adding each folder as a network place manually under "My Network Places" > 2) Go to the folder that needs to be shared and right-click, Properties. Go to > the "Sharing" tab and make sure the relevant checkboxes are ticked. This topic is crap !!! I have the same problem and I think that is something like Jeepers says. Please, talk only about this problem, I want to solve it!!!!! > >I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > -Jeepers Check to see if the 'Server' service is running. JS >I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Anybody have any ideas? JS "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk: >>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Anybody have any ideas? <top-poasting corrected> > Check to see if the 'Server' service is running. > > JS Yet another clueless fool responds. why? already came up with the correct answer. SignatureYour mother was a touchy spammer who ran up huge phone bills in graveyards. > JS "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Yet another clueless fool responds. why? already came up with the correct > answer. Shows how much you know....none of the answers thus far have solved the problem. jim jim "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk: >> JS "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk: >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > jim That might be because you failed to mention the existence of the security programs you have running in your OP. SignatureYour mother was an ennuied stripper who attracted crowds with her act on drugs. It can be a bit fickle doing sharing between XP Pro PC's. Two things you need to check: 1) Does each PC have its own computer name? -- going into properties and checking computer name on My computer 2) Does each PC have a different user logging in? Or do you have the same login name for each PC? Remember that when connecting to another PC.. it will usually see the user as computername1\username. So if you have the same username on all three PC's you could be having trouble merely because of that. Try creating three seperate username logins.. and see if that gives you different results. > It can be a bit fickle doing sharing between XP Pro PC's. > > Two things you need to check: > > 1) Does each PC have its own computer name? -- going into > properties and checking computer name on My computer Yes - different PC names. > 2) Does each PC have a different user logging in? Or do you have > the same login name for each PC? Remember that when connecting to > another PC.. it will usually see the user as computername1\username. > So if you have the same username on all three PC's you could be having > trouble merely because of that. Try creating three seperate username > logins.. and see if that gives you different results. Yes. All 3 are using different user login names. Now I am getting a message that says...."\\pcname\foldername is not accessible. You might not have permission to use this network resource. Contact the administrator of this server to find out of you have access permission. -- Not enough server storage is available to process this command. Looking up that last part took me to posts that say to increase the IRPStackSize in the registry - but it is already at 50 (the maximum setting for XP - or so I have read). I even removed simple file sharing on the stingy PC and re-shared the folder with everyone having all permission - still no luck. The odd thing is that the stingy PC has shared its printers without a hitch. jim > I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Anybody have any ideas? 1- For starters *don't* use 2 firewalls! It will not provide you with additional security and it will or may cause nothing but trouble when you try to setup your network. Decide which firewall you prefer to use and use one firewall only. 2- While you setup and troubleshoot your network completely disable the firewall, at least until you get things sorted out. You can re enable the firewall after you fix your network, keep this extra avenue of trouble out of the picture until you get the network setup properly, you can enable it after you're done. For security reasons, while the firewall is disabled you may want to disconnect the cable to the internet or other outside networks. 3- Make sure that there are no duplicate computer names on the network. Make sure that the machines are all in the same workgroup. 4- For most networks you usually only need one common transport protocol and one network client. Additional transport protocols or clients only bring in extra complications into your network configuration. Additional unneeded transport protocols may result in network collisions and slow down your network. Remove all protocols except for the TCP/IP protocol, in modern networks that is usually the only protocol needed. Remove all network clients except for the Client for Microsoft Networks. 5- Install/enable File and Printer Sharing. 6- Windows XP Pro machines will not allow access to their resources without proper user credentials and authentication. The unsafe method of getting around that is to enable the Guest account. A safer method is to create users with identical names and identical passwords on the machines that you want to share resources. 7- If you have done all of the above and are still getting access denied messages verify the NTFS permissions on the shares. John >> I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > John Just an update.....I found the culprit. I don't know why or how it created this nightmare yet - but I have fired off a note to the publishers to try and get an answer. The application that completely screwed my networking up was Eset's NOD32 Antivirus and Smart Security Suite. Once removed from all PCs, the network works like a charm. This is not the first bad run-in I've had with Eset's NOD32 and Smart Security. On several occassions I have seen Eset's software break applications by blocking them from running with absolutely NO warning or indication that it had done anything at all. On other occassions I have seen NOD32 toss up red threat screens to customers only to see that there was no "clean" or "quarantine" buttons at all and nothing on the blaring red threat screen said that NOD32 knew what to do or was going to take any action at all. All you could do was close the threat screen and wonder if you were protected. It's sad really. NOD32 used to do one thing - kill viruses - and it did it well. With all of the crap they are cramming into NOD32, they have created a monster of a headache to deal with. And, no documentation of any consequence comes with the product. When an application blocks something or cleans something or quarantines something, wouldn't it be great of it told you what it did? Eset's applications don't. They keep you guessing and wasting valuable time and resources trying to find problems that appear to be network or application related - NOT security related. Now, whenever I see ANY problem on a PC with Eset's products installed, my first course of action will be to uninstall Eset's software before I change a single setting. Thanks for all of the suggestions and watch yourself around Eset's NOD32 and "Smart Security". jim > Just an update.....I found the culprit. I don't know why or how it created > this nightmare yet - but I have fired off a note to the publishers to try [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Antivirus and Smart Security Suite. Once removed from all PCs, the network > works like a charm. Thanks for letting us know how you fixed it, follow up replies with the solutions that worked help others when they search for help with the same problems. John >> Just an update.....I found the culprit. I don't know why or how it >> created [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > solutions that worked help others when they search for help with the same > problems. To test out my theory fully, I re-installed only the NOD32 antivirus, version 2.7, (not the Smart Security suite) on 2 of the PCs. I then ran the NOD32 updates. Again, I could not get to PC2's shared folders from PC1 - this with absolutely NO change on PC2 other than installing version 2.7 of NOD32 antivirus. And, I could not get to a folder shared from my My Documents folder on PC1 - even though Share Permissions shows that Everyone has permission to Change or Read items in the folder. The folders on PC2 are shared from a 2nd hard drive and are not a part of any system or special use folders (like My Documents). I even disabled simple file sharing and gave Everyone Full Control under both Sharing and Security for several folders on PC2 and I still could not access the folders from PC1. Absolutely incredible! Well, I guess you won't be spreading any viruses on a network that you can't browse, will you? If they work with me to actually fix these issues (whether through training me or fixing what I percieve as a seriously flawed product) I will post the solutions here. I am uninstalling NOD32 completely and putting on a trial version of AVG until I figure this out. Thanks again to all who posted. jim >>> Just an update.....I found the culprit. I don't know why or how it >>> created [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > jim I called Eset at 1-619-876-5400 after not hearing ANYTHING from their email support on the main website - dispite being promised turn around in 1 business day. As I went through the whole horrid experience with the tech support person, and I tried my best to help him troubleshoot the issue - even volunteering to allow him to take over my PC remotely to solve the issue - he said that he had no data on this issue. I said that was OK...let's just figure it out together, because I can't suggest or install software for end users that I don't trust. Then, with his permission, I began a set of tests to see where and when the access to the shared folders was being blocked. Each test took no more than 2 minutes. During the third test, he asked if I could call back with my results because he had to take other calls. This puzzled me. I would think that Eset would want to find a possible flaw or problem that their users may be experiencing. I told him to go take his time - as we would no longer rcommend or use Eset software until these issues could be satisfactorily explained. I spoke with him about the fact that Eset takes actions without logging those actions or asking for user input during those actions or even notifying the user that it was taking those actions. He said he was aware of that and that there was nothing that he coudl do about it. I also spoke with him about the threat screens that NOD32 sometimes displays with no expanation as to what it was doing about a threat and with no Clean or Quarantine or Remove type buttons for the end user to select. *Sometimes* a "Leave" button was present - but how does that make a user feel - do they only want to "Leave" a possible threat to their security and personal data? I surely don't. He said that they were aware of the problem and were trying to get the coders "to do something about it". This, needless to say, left a warm feeling in my heart - or was it acid reflux? Doesn't matter though - at least not to Eset tech support. If you want to use Eset software, be my guest. We won't. jim > I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Anybody have any ideas? On each WinXP PC, create local user account(s), with non-blank password(s), that have the desired access privileges to the desired shares. Log on to the other PCs using those account(s), and you will be able to access the designated shares, provided your network is configured properly. Also, make sure that WinXP's built-in firewall is disabled on the internal LAN connection. Usually, WinXP's Networking Wizard makes it simple and painless -- almost entirely automatic, in fact. There's a lot of useful, easy-to-follow information in WinXP's Help & Support files, and here: Home Networking http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/using/howto/homenet/default.asp Networking Information http://www.onecomputerguy.com/networking.htm PracticallyNetworked Home http://www.practicallynetworked.com/index.htm Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm SignatureBruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot >> I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ > http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm Just an update.....I found the culprit. I don't know why or how it created this nightmare yet - but I have fired off a note to the publishers to try and get an answer. The application that completely screwed my networking up was Eset's NOD32 Antivirus and Smart Security Suite. Once removed from all PCs, the network works like a charm. This is not the first bad run-in I've had with Eset's NOD32 and Smart Security. On several occassions I have seen Eset's software break applications by blocking them from running with absolutely NO warning or indication that it had done anything at all. On other occassions I have seen NOD32 toss up red threat screens to customers only to see that there was no "clean" or "quarantine" buttons at all and nothing on the blaring red threat screen said that NOD32 knew what to do or was going to take any action at all. All you could do was close the threat screen and wonder if you were protected. It's sad really. NOD32 used to do one thing - kill viruses - and it did it well. With all of the crap they are cramming into NOD32, they have created a monster of a headache to deal with. And, no documentation of any consequence comes with the product. When an application blocks something or cleans something or quarantines something, wouldn't it be great of it told you what it did? Eset's applications don't. They keep you guessing and wasting valuable time and resources trying to find problems that appear to be network or application related - NOT security related. Now, whenever I see ANY problem on a PC with Eset's products installed, my first course of action will be to uninstall Eset's software before I change a single setting. Thanks for all of the suggestions and watch yourself around Eset's NOD32 and "Smart Security". jim >>> I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > and > "Smart Security". Although I have been having issues other places with NOD32, that does NOT, now, seem to be the root source of the problem here. I have exactly the same problem after installing AVG Antivirus. I do not believe that NOD32 and AVG are likely to have exactly the same flaw (although it is not outside th realm of possibility). When I uninstall AVG, all is shared. If I install it...shares are blocked again. As much as I hate, hate, HATE it.....it looks like I may need to re-install XP on PC2 to see if I can isolate the problem. Just damn......like I have time for this....... jim >>>> I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > jim I called Eset at 1-619-876-5400 after not hearing ANYTHING from their email support on the main website - dispite being promised turn around in 1 business day. As I went through the whole horrid experience with the tech support person, and I tried my best to help him troubleshoot the issue - even volunteering to allow him to take over my PC remotely to solve the issue - he said that he had no data on this issue. I said that was OK...let's just figure it out together, because I can't suggest or install software for end users that I don't trust. Then, with his permission, I began a set of tests to see where and when the access to the shared folders was being blocked. Each test took no more than 2 minutes. During the third test, he asked if I could call back with my results because he had to take other calls. This puzzled me. I would think that Eset would want to find a possible flaw or problem that their users may be experiencing. I told him to go take his time - as we would no longer rcommend or use Eset software until these issues could be satisfactorily explained. I spoke with him about the fact that Eset takes actions without logging those actions or asking for user input during those actions or even notifying the user that it was taking those actions. He said he was aware of that and that there was nothing that he coudl do about it. I also spoke with him about the threat screens that NOD32 sometimes displays with no expanation as to what it was doing about a threat and with no Clean or Quarantine or Remove type buttons for the end user to select. *Sometimes* a "Leave" button was present - but how does that make a user feel - do they only want to "Leave" a possible threat to their security and personal data? I surely don't. He said that they were aware of the problem and were trying to get the coders "to do something about it". This, needless to say, left a warm feeling in my heart - or was it acid reflux? Doesn't matter though - at least not to Eset tech support. If you want to use Eset software, be my guest. We won't. jim >>>>> I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > > jim Eset called back. We stayed on the phone for over 2 hours - trying every possible method to isolate the problem. They left me with the concensus that I had a NIC card with drivers that needed to be updated and that doing so would solve the problem. They said AMON (the file monitoring portion of NOD32) was probably conflicting with the NIC drivers. I updated the NIC drivers on my Marvell 1GB ethernet card and still had the same issues. I called them back and told them as much, and they said they'd call me tomorrow (later today). Not being one to give up easily, I formatted the drive and re-installed XP Pro. I added TuneUp Utilities 2006 and Acronis TrueImage and I installed all updates for XP and my drivers. Then, tested file sharing yet again. It worked great. Then, I installed NOD32 2.7 and updated it and restarted the PC. File sharing failed again. This is not something that I am doing to the PC. This is a clean install, completely up to date, with only 2 applications and NOD32. I have installed Acronis and TuneUp Utilities literally hundreds of times for clients. They are not the issue. I have invited Eset to take over the PCs in question remotely and do as they will with them to figure out the problem. I have backups - so I don't care if they screw something up ... as long as they find a solution. They declined. I am at a complete loss. I have no other ideas for testing, other than installing a completely different ethernet adapter with different drivers from a different manufacturer. I may try that before bed. If that fails, I will re-install XP once more....not even installing Acronis or TuneUp Utilities and try NOD32 one last time. If that fails and Eset can't tell me why - I am done with Eset. jim >I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Anybody have any ideas? What it usually means is that you have user permission issues on the share itself. It could be that the Everyone group account has no permissions on the share, while all other user accounts have permissions on the share. The Everyone group account will supersedes all other accounts and their permissions, as an example. You can only see the share permissions for accounts on the share be disabling Simple File Sharing on XP Pro. You should take note in the link about the Authenticated User group on shares and remove the Everyone account off of the share. http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklist.htm >>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklist.htm I did disable Simple File Sharing. It showed that Everyone had full control in the Sharing as well as Security tabs - as I wanted it. But, if I remove Everyone from the shares, I will have to log in to the shares. Something that should be unneccessary. That's the whole reason for the Everyone account. jim >>>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > shares. Something that should be unneccessary. That's the whole reason for > the Everyone account. I think you misunderstand the "Everyone" group. It doesn't mean any unauthenticated Tom, Dick and Harry, it means everyone who has "proper credentials" to access the shares. John >>>>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > unauthenticated Tom, Dick and Harry, it means everyone who has "proper > credentials" to access the shares. Everyone group means anyone that can access the computer can access the share with no credentials period, (any hacker). Authenticated Group means the user accessing the share supplied the proper credentials to access the share. It means the user that wants to access the share will have an an account already created on the computer, which for me, is the same account I use on all computers in a LAN environment. I just access a share from any computer, and I am not challenged to logon to any machine's share, as I am using an Authenticated account. The same account on all machines. As a matter of fact, I remove the Everyone Group account at the <c> level which removes it off of the entire drive and use Authenticated group to remove the hacker hole presented the the Everyone group account. >>>>>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > which removes it off of the entire drive and use Authenticated group to > remove the hacker hole presented the the Everyone group account. I don't really bother with authenticated users in my home network. I am not worried about hackers getting through my 2 routers to my NAT'd boxes. I like simple. I keep things simple. I have so much going on personally and professionally that I cut out any steps in anything that are not ABSOLUTELY neccessary. Even keeping and using the Everyone group and assigning it to my shares, I have never been hacked into. It may happen, but I doubt it. jim >>>>>>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > I don't really bother with authenticated users in my home network. I am > not worried about hackers getting through my 2 routers to my NAT'd boxes. Really? <http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Hundreds-Click-on-Click-Here-to-Get-Infected-Ad/> You think some NAT router for home usage is some kind of stops all and ends all solution? I can tell you right now that I have seen attacks on my own network where they came past that NAT router like a hot knife through butter. All you have to do is step into any FW and Security NG to see the posts with them stating the below. Hey, I got a NAT router and they came past all of it. How did they do it? And I am not talking about that link up above either, as they flat-out attacked the NAT router form home usage and came past it. You think you got some kind of double NAT situation that's going on is bullit proof? You even monitoring the network traffic coming to and leaving your LAN with something like Wallwatcher? Or are you sitting there flying blind? > I like simple. I keep things simple. I have so much going on personally > and professionally that I cut out any steps in anything that are not > ABSOLUTELY neccessary. I am a .NET programmer by profession, with IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of things I must protect on the LAN. And I go to where I am supose to go and that's to the O/S to protect the O/S. The buck stops at the O/S. It doesn't stop anywhere else. That's how I keep things simple. > Even keeping and using the Everyone group and assigning it to my shares, I > have never been hacked into. It may happen, but I doubt it. BTW, I dumped the NAT router for home usage, and I went out and got a low end firewall appliance. A NAT router is ok if you really don't have to protect things, but they are not in the same class as a FW appliance. Even with all that, I always go look for myself from time to time with the proper tools, because nothing is bullet proof -- nothing, and it's particularly true when it comes to the Windows O/S platform. http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Hidden_Backdoors_Trojan_Horses_and_Rootki t_Tools_in_a_Windows_Environment.html If you're telling me you like to keep it simple, then you're telling me you're not looking. >>>>> I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > level which removes it off of the entire drive and use Authenticated > group to remove the hacker hole presented the the Everyone group account. Disable your Guest account and try that again. John See below. >>>>> I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Everyone group means anyone that can access the computer can access the > share with no credentials period, (any hacker). No, that is not true at all! Everyone means everyone who has proper credentials to access the resources. To access the resources you can use the Guest account, that failing you will have to create an account with an identical user name and identical password to access the resources. If the Guest account is disabled no one has proper credentials to access the resources unless they have an identical account on the machine or unless they use alternate credentials. > Authenticated Group > means the user accessing the share supplied the proper credentials to > access the share. I made a mistake by using that term, I should have only mentioned "Proper Credentials", an authenticated user is a user who is accessing the resources via a logon process, to do so he needs proper credentials. John >>>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > shares. Something that should be unneccessary. That's the whole reason > for the Everyone account. It doesn't have to be the Everyone account. It's just an example. You got System and some others. For me, on a share and I was using the Everyone group account on the share, then way have any other account on the share? Everyone means any and every account un-challenged. For me, I just have the Authenticated group account on the share and no other account is on the share. If one can access the share, then it means I have set up an account for them to access the share on the computer. Their one account that they can use to login to any machine on the LAN, a strong named user-id and psw that never expires, and they are never challenged for user-id and psw, as they are Authenticated users. >>>>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > group account on the share, then way have any other account on the share? > Everyone means any and every account un-challenged. Which is exactly what I want. > For me, I just have the Authenticated group account on the share and no > other account is on the share. If one can access the share, then it means > I have set up an account for them to access the share on the computer. > Their one account that they can use to login to any machine on the LAN, a > strong named user-id and psw that never expires, and they are never > challenged for user-id and psw, as they are Authenticated users. That's one way to go. I'd rather not go that route myself. If I'm going to bother authenticating users and such, I'll install a 2003 server and do it up right. I'm flawed that way.....all or nothing. If I can't give something my all, I give it as litte as needed to just get by. jim >>>>>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Which is exactly what I want. hackes too >> For me, I just have the Authenticated group account on the share and no >> other account is on the share. If one can access the share, then it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to bother authenticating users and such, I'll install a 2003 server and do > it up right. I really don't think you understand what Authenticated user means here in the context, and has nothing to do with a domain controller. Win XP pro and Win 2k3 server are NT based O/S(s) and the core of them have very little differences. >>>>>>I have 3 XP Pro PCs. No server. All in same workgroup. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > hackes too Bring it.... ....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........''...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( ..............\.............\... hackers....... >>> For me, I just have the Authenticated group account on the share and no >>> other account is on the share. If one can access the share, then it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and Win 2k3 server are NT based O/S(s) and the core of them have very > little differences. Let's see......according to the Microsoft XP Professional Resource Kit 2nd Edition (written by The Microsoft Windows Team you know), page 715, "Authenticated Users. Any user, except a user of the Guest account, who is authenticated locally by a trusted domain controller. This identity provides user with the rights neccessary to operate the sytem as an end user. (The Guest account is never treated as an Authenticated User.)" And, from page 716..."In Windows 2000 and later, groups whose membership is automatically configured by the operating system, such as Everyone and Authenticated Users, are not used to assign permissions to file and registry objects. Only those groups whose memberships can be controlled by and administrator - primarily Users, Power Users, and Administrators - are used to assign permissions. When users are a member of a group, they automatically have the permissions that have been assigned to that group." In other words, yes Mr. Arnold, I DO understand what Authenticated Users means. And, since I have no domain controller (note the reference to "no server" in the original post) in my 3 PC + router setup and since you cannot make an XP PC a domain controller, you either are having trouble with the English language, are completely clueless about Authenticated Users (as defined by Microsoft) or are simply a troll trying to drag this thread off topic. I'd say you are the latter. Good day to you sir. jim >> hackes too > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ............\..............( > ..............\.............\... hackers....... Boy, you got some real mental issues you need to address, and anger is one of them. I am sure you have heard it before. Let me get you some tissues for your issues, then we can make an appointment for you to visit a mental disease.specialist to treat your needs. I live in the US too, but this just goes to show why the rest of the world hates the US, with people like you living in it that will attack at the drop of a hat, guns drawn - cowboy :) It looks to me that your mama should have never had you. She should have strangled you at birth with you own placenta. She must have known there was something wrong you. I bet you flipped the bird at her and the medical staff too when you popped. <This is a correction boy you had me laughing too hard.> It looks to me that your mama should have never had you. She should have strangled you at birth with *your* own placenta. She must have known there was something wrong with you. I bet you flipped the bird at her and the medical staff too when you popped. Silly Americans <VBG> <snip> At least you had the courtesy to no longer comment on a subject you know nothing about. Thank you. jim ><snip> >At least you had the courtesy to no longer comment on a subject you know >nothing about. He knows, and Why? answered your question long time ago. Yet you continue to blame ESET. Your quote: "I have exactly the same problem after installing AVG Antivirus. I do not believe that NOD32 and AVG are likely to have exactly the same flaw (although it is not outside th realm of possibility)." Message-ID: <VEBjj.74145$L%6.48473@bignews3.bellsouth.net> SignatureBunch Creative of ads http://uaddit.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=642 >><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > flaw (although it is not outside th realm of possibility)." > Message-ID: <VEBjj.74145$L%6.48473@bignews3.bellsouth.net> Hell no, I just read the post that Why made to him. His original post I didn't really read.. I was just trying to help the poor thing. He is double NAT'ed, double personal packet filtered/personal firewalled, and double AV'ed. He's thrown everything at it but the kitchen sink. Yes, he's a double agent and doubly dangerous to himself. <VBG> > <snip> > > At least you had the courtesy to no longer comment on a subject you know > nothing about. It's your show cowboy. We're just along for the ride, look at the thread and *you* in it. And I have forgotten more than you'll ever know, cowboy. Now, you run along and pull a pistol on someone and commit a robbery, you can get in your car and do a little road rage driving on someone and kill them, or you can play some combat computer games with someone and make believe. Don't kill the messenger. <g> You are a dangerous Human Being that needs to be locked-up, cowboy. :) You are the *man*, boss, like you have been working with computers two years like a two year old, and you know it all like a good little anger issue and mad at the world American. :) <snipped to save you from reading his madness> > like a good little anger issue and mad at the world American. :) That's right.....attack Americans. Just like the rest of the world, you'll call on us to feed your starving or die to defend your lands....but only until you have your fill - then we are the bad guys. If I had my way...we'd keep to ourselves and let you all fend for yourselves. Then, you'd be singing a different tune. jim <snipped> Yeah, yeah whatever double agent cowboy. Why don't you hook up a sink, stove, refrigerator and a George Foreman grill to your network, that's double NAT'ed? You can double-up on everything. You are the man. It's your show boss. :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.