nerdexam
Linux_Foundation

LFCS · Question #637

The configuration below is contained in the Samba main configuration file: [homes] comment = Home folder writable = yes browseable = no valid users = %S However, an attempt at listing the share with…

The correct answer is A. One of the reasons is that the browseable directive was set to no, denying the share listing to B. If the smbclient command was executed by an authenticated user, the share would be listed. This question examines why a Samba [homes] share with specific configurations (browseable = no, valid users = %S) might not be listed by smbclient, and identifies two contributing factors.

Submitted by satoshi_tk· Apr 18, 2026Service Configuration

Question

The configuration below is contained in the Samba main configuration file: [homes] comment = Home folder writable = yes browseable = no valid users = %S However, an attempt at listing the share with smbclient didn't work. Which TWO options below could be possible reasons for this?

Options

  • AOne of the reasons is that the browseable directive was set to no, denying the share listing to
  • BIf the smbclient command was executed by an authenticated user, the share would be listed.
  • CThe configurations above are correct, but the administrator forgot to reload the configuration
  • DThe real problem is in the valid users directive, which allows access to the share, but denies
  • EThe writable option is in the wrong place in the configuration file.

How the community answered

(21 responses)
  • A
    52% (11)
  • C
    5% (1)
  • D
    14% (3)
  • E
    29% (6)

Why each option

This question examines why a Samba `[homes]` share with specific configurations (`browseable = no`, `valid users = %S`) might not be listed by `smbclient`, and identifies two contributing factors.

AOne of the reasons is that the browseable directive was set to no, denying the share listing toCorrect

The `browseable = no` directive explicitly prevents the share from appearing in network browses or listings (e.g., when using `smbclient -L <hostname>`), making it undiscoverable through general enumeration.

BIf the smbclient command was executed by an authenticated user, the share would be listed.Correct

Even though `browseable = no` hides the share from general listing, an authenticated user who is authorized by `valid users = %S` (which dynamically resolves to the accessing user's own home share) can still explicitly connect to it or view its properties with `smbclient` if they provide correct credentials and directly specify the share name.

CThe configurations above are correct, but the administrator forgot to reload the configuration

While forgetting to reload the configuration is a common administrative error, the provided configuration (`browseable = no`) *itself* directly explains the lack of listing, making it a configuration issue rather than just a reload oversight.

DThe real problem is in the valid users directive, which allows access to the share, but denies

The `valid users = %S` directive allows access for the specific user who owns the home directory; it does not deny listing in a way that contradicts `browseable = no`, which is the primary reason for non-listing.

EThe writable option is in the wrong place in the configuration file.

The `writable` option is correctly placed within the share definition and does not cause any issues related to listing the share.

Concept tested: Samba share browsing and access control

Source: https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/current/manpages/smb.conf.5.html

Topics

#Samba#Share Configuration#Network Filesystems#Authentication

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Sign up to join the discussion
Full LFCS Practice