Printing: why is 'everyone' not everyone?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.security (More info?)

Hi,

W2K SP4 server, XP SP1 workstation. I give everyone permission to
print on a printer connected to the server.

I try to add this printer on a workstation which is not a member of
the domain but on the same subnet. The printer does not show as
connected to the server when I browse to it. Not a big deal, I
suppose.

I manually add the printer but am prompted for credentials and have to
use domain credentials to complete the addition of the printer. Why?
It would not be important except it is just a matter of time until
some internal password expires or something, and the workstation
cannot connect to the printer anymore.

At that time the error will initially be "print spooler service is not
running" but the solution is always delete the printer and add it
again.

Thanks for any help offered,

Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.security (More info?)

Everyone includes users and guest access. If you do not enable the guest account,
then everyone is equivalent to the users group which requires credentials for access
to a resource that may be either obtained through domain logon to a domain resource
or the local users and groups on a computer and the target computer. Of course
enabling the guest account can be a big security hole unless the network is well
protected from the internet and all network users are fully trusted. -- Steve


"Peter Kaufman" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:cg5fg0hevmqcco3afod6c47tjsh3d2ibkm@4ax.com...
> Hi,
>
> W2K SP4 server, XP SP1 workstation. I give everyone permission to
> print on a printer connected to the server.
>
> I try to add this printer on a workstation which is not a member of
> the domain but on the same subnet. The printer does not show as
> connected to the server when I browse to it. Not a big deal, I
> suppose.
>
> I manually add the printer but am prompted for credentials and have to
> use domain credentials to complete the addition of the printer. Why?
> It would not be important except it is just a matter of time until
> some internal password expires or something, and the workstation
> cannot connect to the printer anymore.
>
> At that time the error will initially be "print spooler service is not
> running" but the solution is always delete the printer and add it
> again.
>
> Thanks for any help offered,
>
> Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.security (More info?)

Thanks, Steve.

Peter

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:37:22 GMT, "Steven L Umbach"
<n9rou@n0-spam-for-me-comcast.net> wrote:

>Everyone includes users and guest access. If you do not enable the guest account,
>then everyone is equivalent to the users group which requires credentials for access
>to a resource that may be either obtained through domain logon to a domain resource
>or the local users and groups on a computer and the target computer. Of course
>enabling the guest account can be a big security hole unless the network is well
>protected from the internet and all network users are fully trusted. -- Steve
>
>
>"Peter Kaufman" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>news:cg5fg0hevmqcco3afod6c47tjsh3d2ibkm@4ax.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> W2K SP4 server, XP SP1 workstation. I give everyone permission to
>> print on a printer connected to the server.
>>
>> I try to add this printer on a workstation which is not a member of
>> the domain but on the same subnet. The printer does not show as
>> connected to the server when I browse to it. Not a big deal, I
>> suppose.
>>
>> I manually add the printer but am prompted for credentials and have to
>> use domain credentials to complete the addition of the printer. Why?
>> It would not be important except it is just a matter of time until
>> some internal password expires or something, and the workstation
>> cannot connect to the printer anymore.
>>
>> At that time the error will initially be "print spooler service is not
>> running" but the solution is always delete the printer and add it
>> again.
>>
>> Thanks for any help offered,
>>
>> Peter
>