bertrem
Dabbler
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 15
In absence of AD/LDAP, is there any way to associate multiple groups (and unique permissions for each) with a CIFS share or even better: a subfolder thereof?
The docs say that once a CIFS share has been created, you should be able to administer permissions from the [Windows] client. I can't for the life of me figure out how to add additional users/groups via the Windows security dialog, though. The "security" tab of the Windows property dialog for the share includes just three entries: the owner of the folder, the group of which the owner is a member, and "Everyone". Clicking the "add" button gives you a dialog to enter new names and search for them. Is there some way to get this dialog to search for (and find) other users/groups that I've created on the FreeNAS system?
If not from the client end, is there some way to do this from server side? Or am I hopelessly stuck with UNIX's traditional notion of just one owner, one group, and one world, and no more?
(I realize, by the way, that I could (I think) work around this by creating a different group for each relevant permutation of users, but that seems pretty clunky. I'm hoping there's a cleaner solution.)
Thanks.
The docs say that once a CIFS share has been created, you should be able to administer permissions from the [Windows] client. I can't for the life of me figure out how to add additional users/groups via the Windows security dialog, though. The "security" tab of the Windows property dialog for the share includes just three entries: the owner of the folder, the group of which the owner is a member, and "Everyone". Clicking the "add" button gives you a dialog to enter new names and search for them. Is there some way to get this dialog to search for (and find) other users/groups that I've created on the FreeNAS system?
If not from the client end, is there some way to do this from server side? Or am I hopelessly stuck with UNIX's traditional notion of just one owner, one group, and one world, and no more?
(I realize, by the way, that I could (I think) work around this by creating a different group for each relevant permutation of users, but that seems pretty clunky. I'm hoping there's a cleaner solution.)
Thanks.