[TriLUG] Reverse Samba?

[MG]

Thanks - just looked at this and it was not set on.  Looks reassuring 
that the ports and individual IP's can be set, but there are also other 
security programs running that I'll need to check out. 


This is rapidly going from fun to extremely frustrating, though.  Just 
got another inscrutable error message from somewhere in the intersection 
between the #&@ Windows machine and the smbclient.  I think I'll take a 
break (and several deep breaths) and go back for now to doing the work 
all this was in aid of.  It's working well enough and I have enough 
leads to chew on for later. 


Thanks, y'all!


MG


Kevin Kreamer wrote:
> MG wrote:
>   
>> Well, now,  I"m confused again.  I thought the shares had to be
>> physically on the Linux box.  I set the share I used up on Linux - I
>> named a directory in a particular partition on Linux, entered that name
>> in samba.conf. and pointed to it from Windows using the Map Network
>> Drive option of the Tools menu in the Windows Folder menus.  Windows
>> could see the Samba share from there, so I could move stuff back and
>> forth on those shares.  I couldn't get Linux to see the Windows drives
>> at all, even with file sharing on, either through Samba or on the
>> network, although the Windows machine itself shows up.
>>
>> I've not done file sharing on Windows before, so the problem may just be
>> my own ignorance of how Windows operates.  But then that would make it
>> outside the focus of this group, which I understand is about a
>> -rational- operating system.
>>     
>
> I think his post assumes that you can access a share on the Windows
> machine from the Linux box.  As to that, be sure that the shares aren't
> being filtered out by a firewall.  If it is XP, you can check on Windows
> firewall by going to Control Settings > Windows Firewall, click on the
> Exceptions tab, and make sure that "File and Printer Sharing" is checked
> (more specifically smb sharing uses ports 137-139).  Make sure other
> firewall software isn't running (like ZoneAlarm or Norton Firewall),
> especially if it isn't an XP machine.
>
> Kevin
>
>   
>> Lee Fickenscher wrote:
>>     
>>> I'm a bit confused and maybe its because I misunderstood the problem,
>>> but why not just smbmnt the windows shares? This would mount the
>>> shares in the linux filesystem thus allowing you to use tar or
>>> whatever else on them while still using the actual drive space of the
>>> windows machine.
>>>
>>> -Lee
>>>