hi eric,
on the shared name add the “$” sign behind, then it’ll be invisible on the network.
Let say your shared name is eric$ on server1, anybody who want to access it must know the exact shared name with server1eric$

hope it helps.

hi eric,
on the shared name add the “$” sign behind, then it’ll be invisible on the network.
Let say your shared name is eric$ on server1, anybody who want to access it must know the exact shared name with server1eric$

hope it helps.

Thanks for the reply …

Let me add that we wish to have the parent shared folder visable to all, but the child (non-shared) sub-folders and files visable ONLY by way of group membership.

Example:
|-APPSHARE
|-DEPT1
|-DEPT2

User in GroupDept1 logs on and can only see APPSHARE | DEPT1 | …
User in GroupDept2 logs on and can only see APPSHARE | DEPT2 | …
User in GroupMgmt logs on and can see all APPSHARE | …

We are not sharing out the child folders/files, but are controlling access via security permissions.

Could our design be inefficient?

Please advise.

Thanks again …

We struggled with this issue too and came to the conclusion that there is no way around it.

We did hear that this was going to be possible in Windows server 2003.

I suppose we can’t control the visibility with the NTFS/sharing permission.

If I may suggest you could hide all the child folders – so they won’t be visible to all – , then put the logon script in group policy to map particular child folder to designated group/OU.

In the security settings as opposed to the Share tab u could try playing with the “List Folder Contents” tick box.
They may still be able to see it but at least not view the contents.
Brian

How about a log-on script which maps the hidden share to a drive letter? Something along the line of:
net use X: SERVERDRIVEFOLDER$

Different scripts for different users & groups of users?

Within a share there is no way to hide folders based on permissions. The best you can do as one reply pointed out is to set the permissions on the folders within the share for the appropriate users.

For example you have a share on server 1 called share. You have Folder1 and Folder2. If only certain individuals are allowed to view Folder2 then you have to modify its security settings to restrict access.

Do your users need access to more than one folder under the shared folder? If not, I would definately do the drive mapping to the sub-folder. Otherwise the end users will start saving documents all over the place and not in their proper department folder, because they will save to the share without thinking about the need to drill down one more level to put it in the right place!

Thank everyone for their advise … looks like we would have to chalk this one as a no go.

Regards …