I know that I'm perfectly capable of listening to a client's requirements, and explaining how the solution meets those requirements. I suspect I'm somewhat spoiled in that I've been able to divest myself of any clients who behave in this way very quickly.

It's what happens when people try to specify how tools should work, rather than what they should achieve. It may seem silly to us, but it's how things in the real world happen. I know people that do things like this, letting their secretary have their password so they can login to check things, for instance.

If they made use of the system they already have, it would meet their needs perfectly. 'We're not using the existing security tools correctly, so are adding another layer. The only reason I can see this request as feasible would be if people are using shared accounts which is the issue rather than a PW protected folder and the solution would be to not use shared accounts. Also as a FYI AD is already dependent on a password entry for access as you first need to authenticate to the domain controller before you are granted rights to the folder structure (assuming the shares are setup properly). Sounds like this is stemmed more so from an issue with business/HR type of issue rather than an IT/Security issue. If you want to stop someone from copying then you set permissions to block permissions for move. IE if you are trying to stop someone from accessing the folder you set explicate rights to the folder so only the people that need access can view or edit. My question as many others would be, Why? What is the reason for this request? I can see absolutely no reason that you would need to password protect a folder that wouldn't also be accomplished by restricting access using Active Directory.

Windows lock folder with password