Need help with guest accounts
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: iPad
Next: Credit card jam, was: Black Screen of Death
From: Kathy Morgan on 8 Feb 2010 17:53 Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > 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. That would undoubtedly be more secure, but it wouldn't be acceptable. We do want them to have access at least to the printers--but only if they're legitimate guests that have been granted access by coming in and getting the password. (I'll probably make them sign an agreement, too, that they'll use the connection only for lawful purposes. That won't stop anyone from doing whatever the like, but it probably provides us with some legal protection.) -- Kathy
From: Jolly Roger on 8 Feb 2010 17:53 In article <michelle-AB8667.15441008022010(a)nothing.attdns.com>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > In article <jollyroger-DDE110.16200808022010(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > What would they 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: Daniel Cohen on 8 Feb 2010 17:55 Kathy Morgan <kmorgan(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > I agree completely! This may be an argument in favor of a router with > poor range. So does the physical setup mean that you have to use wireless? Is physical connection via ethernet cables too messy? What about ethernet over powerline? I've not used it myself, and I don't know about the security, but in some situations it seems to work well. -- <http://www.decohen.com> Send e-mail to the Reply-To address. Mail to the From address is never read.
From: nospam on 8 Feb 2010 18:22 In article <jollyroger-7F9536.16343408022010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > With all due respect, you're an idiot if you think security updates > aren't important. i never said they weren't important. do not twist what i say.
From: nospam on 8 Feb 2010 18:22
In article <1jdlkth.nkxcihv4ghtcN%kmorgan(a)spamcop.net>, Kathy Morgan <kmorgan(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > 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. you need to block it at the router. |