In message <
[email protected]> of Fri, 16 Jul 2004
16:41:04 in microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin, anonymous@discussi
ons.microsoft.com writes
Hi Walter,
thaks for your answer. Now i have to ask you if that
works fine in Windows 2000 Server. Security issues?
Jaime,
I have no notion of what works or fails in Windows 2000 Server - I run
Windows 2000 - or of security issues involved with the subst command.
Effectively, it creates another drive letter which is part of a drive
you already have. I would expect it has no additional security
implications assuming that you can prevent attack on the code which
creates the definition. There may be problems with programs which
enumerate drives assuming they are distinct. For example, when I search
for files or folders, the default is to search local harddrives (C;F;W).
F and W are each part of C. Craig Barkhouse's suggestion of junctions is
likely to be better. I leave you to explore as shall I.
However, I wonder if the problem you pose is the correct one.
Why do you need a path of more than 1K bytes? Searching for executables
via such a path is likely to hammer performance.
I use the subst command in two ways:
1) as a shorthand when I am doing intensive work on a particular sub-
directory (and its sub-directories recursively) of a drive.
2) For the situation of a drive whose letter is not fixed.
You can see both in the following list:
C:\) subst
F:\: => C:\wfb\url\ftp\sources.redhat.com\pub\bzip2\v102\bzip2-1.0.2.2
W:\: => C:\watcom
On my XP system, my usual C drive is actually the E drive and W is
E:\watcom. I can, as a result, refer to the same things via drive W on
both systems.
