I don't think I have a single client who hasn't gone through some sort of certification process that requires unique and private user accounts - even a simple PCI-DSS SAQ will specify this. In the real world that I live in, people know that sharing login credentials is something that you Do Not Do. If they still insist on doing things a different way, then I suggest that there's little point in their paying my fees. I know that I'm perfectly capable of listening to a client's requirements, and explaining how the solution meets those requirements. I suspect I'm somewhat spoiled in that I've been able to divest myself of any clients who behave in this way very quickly. It's what happens when people try to specify how tools should work, rather than what they should achieve. It may seem silly to us, but it's how things in the real world happen. I know people that do things like this, letting their secretary have their password so they can login to check things, for instance. If they made use of the system they already have, it would meet their needs perfectly. "We're not using the existing security tools correctly, so are adding another layer. The only reason I can see this request as feasible would be if people are using shared accounts which is the issue rather than a PW protected folder and the solution would be to not use shared accounts. Also as a FYI AD is already dependent on a password entry for access as you first need to authenticate to the domain controller before you are granted rights to the folder structure (assuming the shares are setup properly). Sounds like this is stemmed more so from an issue with business/HR type of issue rather than an IT/Security issue. If you want to stop someone from copying then you set permissions to block permissions for move. IE if you are trying to stop someone from accessing the folder you set explicate rights to the folder so only the people that need access can view or edit. My question as many others would be, Why? What is the reason for this request? I can see absolutely no reason that you would need to password protect a folder that wouldn't also be accomplished by restricting access using Active Directory. Create the Playlist within the MediaMonkey app, then save as a. Local files relative, (I'm guessing relative to Playlist location.). Global root for UNC paths, fully qualified drive and path for local files, "export" functionality in sub menu, "linking" application playlist with on disk playlist, "Use Relative Paths" OFF by default, "Use Extended M3u" Global root for UNC paths, automatic export to "my documents/my music/my playlists" not settable All items fully qualified drive and path for local files, "export" functionality in sub menu The playlist file will have to be scanned by the UPnP server software (such as Twonky), before it is displayed on the GUIĬreates playlists at global root for UNC paths. M3Ufile and is saved in the same root folder as the Music. The following table lists the behaviours of common playlist creation toolsĮnsure that the Playlist is saved as a. Out of the ones listed here, only Media Monkey defaults to relative paths. ![]() Those playlist tools that do allow relative paths, default to absolute paths. Most playlist creating tools default to producing playlists with absolute links to items. ![]() This will affect playlists where absolute paths are used The Samba view is where the Playlist creation tool will run, but Twonky must use the "Linux view". The same files will also be available over a SAMBA view (on Windows clients). For example a media library on a NAS with Twonky installed will have a "Linux view" that is used directly by Twonky.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |