Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem
From: Gerry Hickman (gerry666uk_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 02/15/05
- Next message: Gerry Hickman: "Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem"
- Previous message: Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\): "Re: Copying and running processes on remote machines"
- In reply to: Juan: "Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem"
- Next in thread: Juan: "Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem"
- Reply: Juan: "Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:16:09 +0000
Hi Juan,
> thanks for your reply. I don't understand your answer - what do you mean?
> Do you mean that these extra paramters are unneccesarry?
Yes, I'm saying the whole thing is unneccessary (unless you've got some
specialist security setup, which I don't think you have).
Your original post was saying the goal was to make the scripts more
"secure", but I'm saying your scripts are no more secure than if they
were running with defaults.
Regarding plain text, unless you actually typed in the text yourself, it
would be very difficult for WMI to send passwords in plain text even if
it wanted to! By default it will try to impersonate the client and
authenticate using NTLM. That's fine, until you want to try to perform a
double network hop, and then it won't work. If you need to connect from
computer A, to computer B, and then ask computer B to access computer C,
it won't work under NTLM, and Delegation is the only option. That's why
WBEM never became a reality on Microsoft systems.
-- Gerry Hickman (London UK)
- Next message: Gerry Hickman: "Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem"
- Previous message: Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\): "Re: Copying and running processes on remote machines"
- In reply to: Juan: "Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem"
- Next in thread: Juan: "Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem"
- Reply: Juan: "Re: Building a WMI Moniker - Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|