Need help with guest accounts
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: iPad
Next: Credit card jam, was: Black Screen of Death
From: Mike Rosenberg on 8 Feb 2010 17:16 Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > You think incorrectly. > > He may think correctly, but what he thinks is incorrect. > > I think different. ;-) I stand corrected, although I'm sitting. -- My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: nospam on 8 Feb 2010 17:20 In article <jollyroger-E32973.16085708022010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > Mr. nospam's assertion that updates aren't important is pure bullshit. > They are absolutely critical in many cases. and in many cases they aren't. if it's not broken, don't fix it. same for a lot of things.
From: Jolly Roger on 8 Feb 2010 17:20 In article <michelle-40E352.12335408022010(a)nothing.attdns.com>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > In article <1jdl9m2.1wu0m801x74k7aN%kmorgan(a)spamcop.net>, > kmorgan(a)spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) wrote: > > > > But I just noticed you said you have a switch. I'm a bit puzzled as > > > to how things are connected now. > > > > Our Internet access is provided by a DSL modem which is connected to an > > ethernet switch with approximately 10 or 12 ports. (I'm at home now, so > > I can't look at it to confirm--there are a *whole* bunch of ports, maybe > > 20 or 30, but I'm not sure they're all active and available for use.) > > Each of our computers and printers is plugged into one of those ports. > > If I got either an Express or other wireless router, it would be plugged > > into one of the empty ports on the switch. > > Ah, that clarifies (and somewhat changes) things. In this case, you would > need to set up the router as a bridge. And with that I'll bow out because > there are people here more knowledgeable than I as to what and how you > would need to do things. On the contrary, I think it would be more secure to set the Express up as a separate network. That way guests that connect to the Express would not have access to resources (computers, printers, and so on) on the main network. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Jolly Roger on 8 Feb 2010 17:34 In article <080220101420070752%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <jollyroger-E32973.16085708022010(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > Mr. nospam's assertion that updates aren't important is pure bullshit. > > They are absolutely critical in many cases. > > and in many cases they aren't. if it's not broken, don't fix it. same > for a lot of things. With all due respect, you're an idiot if you think security updates aren't important. I'm not having this argument with you. You're wrong - plain and simple. You've done nothing but attempt to confuse things for the OP with your trollish, inaccurate responses in this thread. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Kathy Morgan on 8 Feb 2010 17:53
Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > In article <1jdl5fr.76hjfd1bqwg2pN%kmorgan(a)spamcop.net>, > kmorgan(a)spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) wrote: > > > Do any routers that support guest networking allow you to put a time > > limit on connections? With our slow connection speed, simply putting a > > half-hour time limit on connections might be enough to stop any serious > > pirating. Aside from moral and legal considerations, we have a 10 GB > > per month upload/download limit, so we don't want anyone doing major > > downloads. Of course, I guess even if there were a built-in time limit, > > a person could simply reconnect after they timed out. > > You can set Mac OS X 10.6 (maybe earlier versions) to automatically log > out after a given time period. So you happen to know if that works any better in 10.6 than it did in 10.4? I have the librarian's iMac (which has 10.4 on it) set to automatically log out after a given time period, but the automatic logout usually fails due to an open document that hasn't been saved. (I'm just asking out of idle curiousity.) > I think it would be more effective to control which outbound ports are > allowed through your router (if your router supports such controls), and > what guests can do on the computers themselves. You might consider, for > instance, installing Little Snitch on the Macs to limit outgoing > connections to specific ports, like port 80. Controling what people do on the library's Mac's should be fairly straightforward; for this subthread I'm more concerned about what guests who bring in their own laptop might do. -- Kathy |