After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 135699 - samba shares passwords are kept even if they are wrong
samba shares passwords are kept even if they are wrong
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 132933
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: File and Folder Operations
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-02-28 17:31 UTC by Santiago Erquicia
Modified: 2005-02-12 08:28 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.9/2.10


Description Santiago Erquicia 2004-02-28 17:31:56 UTC 
Description of Problem:
When you try to browse a samba directory in
another computer, it ask for a username and password.

If any of those is wrong, there is no way to
browse that directory because the information is
cached (?) and nautilus doesn't prompt for another
one.

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Go to "Net Servers"
2. Browse into one of the computers
3. Insert a wrong username and/or password

Actual Results:
I cannot browse the directoy because nautilus
never ask me again for the username and password.
 I cannot do that even restarting nautilus (not
killing it)

Expected Results:
If there was a problem when trying to browse a
directory, don't cache the information and ask
again for the username and password

How often does this happen? 
Always

Additional Information:
Using Fedora Core 1 (I think it's using samba 3)
Comment 1 Simon Watson 2004-03-03 20:16:29 UTC 
I can confirm the same problem is happening here - particularly
annoying... In my mind nautilus should always ask for new ID at least
once, if authorization fails.
Comment 2 Martin Wehner 2005-02-12 08:28:31 UTC 
This is a bug in the gnome-vfs smb auth code. It should be fixed in 2.10.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 132933 ***