Skip to main content

windows - Why does accessing a folder via UNC path share not work but mapping the same path as a drive does?



I have two domains, PRIMARY and EXTERNAL. EXTERNAL has a one-way outgoing trust to PRIMARY so that PRIMARY's users can authenticate in EXTERNAL. Both domains have Windows Server 2008 DCs running at the Windows Server 2003 compatibility level. PRIMARY users are generally stripped of their authentication privileges in EXTERNAL (including PRIMARY domain admins) but the few users with explicit access get the authentication privileges granted.



The EXTERNAL domain controller has a share called Projects on which everyone has full access. The folder is then locked down with ACLs to only allow a few of EXTERNAL's administrative groups. A few levels down in this folder hierarchy, there is a folder where a user (TESTUSER) in PRIMARY is given modify access. The UNC folder path to this folder is \\EXTERNAL-DC\Projects\A\B\C\Target.



When PRIMARY\TESTUSER is logged into a PRIMARY domain-mapped computer with Windows 7, trying to go directly to the path does not work. ("[unc path][new line]The specified path does not exist. Check the path, and then try again.") However, mapping the folder with the exact same path as a drive works, and the appropriate privileges apply (files can be created, etc).



What can I do to enable the UNC path to work? What causes the discrepancy?



Answer



I presume you map the drive to the entire path. (E.g "net use X: \....\Target") ?



The UNC doesn't work because the users need read-access to each folder in the UNC path in order to traverse the path.



Mapping to the end-point doesn't require this.
(The access-rights on the parent folders are not evaluated in this case. Only the folder(s) that the user actually "sees".)



Weird ? Yes, but that is the way Microsoft designed this.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able