On Monday, November 28, 2011 01:15:30 PM Les Mikesell wrote: > None of which justifies someone else helping to continue a misguided > and insecure practice... Not all systems are Internet connected, and not all sites need the same security; one size does not fit all. In the OP, we have a basic set of data against which a question was asked: 1.) The OP has a NAS (perhaps only able to do SMB for all we know); 2.) The OP has inherited a system with an undefined number of users who all share a login on a workstation (which actually is fairly common on the floor of a factory, just to mention one instance of which I have direct knowledge); 3.) The system as described allows each user to have a semi-private fileshare; 4.) The OP wants to disable credential caching for SMB fileshares from the desktop (at least that's how it sounds). The request embodied by 4 is not unreasonable, and should be answerable. To the OP; see the opposite of your problem in this Ubuntu bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gnome-keyring/+bug/67189 Perhaps the GNOME keyring settings can be twiddled to make it not remember SMB credentials? Don't know directly, as I'm a KDE user (but the KDE wallet has similar 'features' that seem to be inconsistent from update to update.....). But if I were to have the OP's issue that's what I'd look at first. > If it is a matter of policy, let them take > the hit themselves. Or how about anyone who is not willing to try to actually answer the question simply not unnecessarily reply? Or reply privately instead. I can't count the times I've searched for the answer to an arcane issue and come up with hundreds of useless 'you shouldn't do it that way so I refuse to answer the question but I'm going to post anyway and you can't make me stop' threads and one or two actual answers; having the useless rant threads out there makes it more difficult to find solutions in the archives. Because the fact of the matter is, no matter what you do, someone out there thinks what you're doing is stupid.