share-level security without drive mappings

I would like to utilize a password protected share on a Win95 machine (from a NT4W) by copying a file directly to the appropriate UNC name. This is necessary because a couple of dozen such processes will be running concurrently and I would quickly run out of drive mappings. Though this would work fine if the shares weren't password protected, I can't seem to find the correct syntax for submitting the password. Can this be done? If not, any other ideas on how to get around the drive mapping limitations?

P.S. - Please don't answer with "this can't be done". Such an answer is entirely useless. An working substitute is desired. Thanks.
rdowlingAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

jhanceCommented:
>P.S. - Please don't answer with "this >can't be done". Such an answer is >entirely useless.

You presuppose that every question has a positive answer.  This is not the case and often "it cannot be done" _IS_ the correct answer!

0
rdowlingAuthor Commented:
Actually, I am very much aware that it may be the correct answer to the initial question. However, In the last sentence, I asked for alternative solutions if that were the case. I was just trying to keep some jerk from locking the question by telling me that it couldn't be done. I would not consider that an answer worthy of awarding points since I am looking for a solution; not a "yes" or "no".
0
rdowlingAuthor Commented:
Actually, I am very much aware that it may be the correct answer to the initial question. However, In the last sentence, I asked for alternative solutions if that were the case. I was just trying to keep some jerk from locking the question by telling me that it couldn't be done. I would not consider that an answer worthy of awarding points since I am looking for a solution; not a "yes" or "no".
0
Rowby Goren Makes an Impact on Screen and Online

Learn about longtime user Rowby Goren and his great contributions to the site. We explore his method for posing questions that are likely to yield a solution, and take a look at how his career transformed from a Hollywood writer to a website entrepreneur.

jhanceCommented:
I don't know the answer to your question one way or the other.  It may be possible, maybe not.  

I just think it's bad form for a questioner to say "I won't accept no for an answer."
0
NenadicCTOCommented:
You can create an account on NT that would have the same username as the account logged on interactively on Windows 95 and synchronize their passwords. That may do the trick.
0
TurcoCommented:
I can't do that. But ther is a solution if you have a NT server or Netware Server:

on the win95 machine, go to network settings/"Access Control" tab. Select "User-Level Access control" then write your domain or server name in the field.

after restarting your win95 computer, you can select groups/users and their access rights for the appropriate shares.
0
LermitteCommented:
You can do it with net use \\computername \user:domainname\username password

Type net use /? for information.

Mario
0
Tim HolmanCommented:
Make that :

net use \\computername\ipc$ /user:domainname\username password

then you should be able to access UNC shares without problems.

What EXACTLY are you trying to do ?
Some form of administration ?
There may be another way, as there's little point putting a password in a batch file as users need to see the batch file in order to run it.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
funnyworldCommented:
Each "net use ..." will occupy one drive mapping. Will it be problem to you, rdowling?
0
rdowlingAuthor Commented:
Beautiful! I was not aware of this. This allows me to authenticate to the system without wasting a mapping. The batch file resides on my personal workstation in a secured area so placing passwords in it is not an issue.
0
LermitteCommented:
I have make the same comment Tim exept that I don't have say to map the IPC$

Mario
0
Tim HolmanCommented:
You're right Mario - it establishes an IPC connection anyway !

0
Tim HolmanCommented:
Lermitte should get the points !
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Windows Networking

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.