Re: Sample security Code is not working!

Of course not. I have nothing to with Microsoft :-)

These are purely my findings.

Best regards,
Henning Krause

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de
Exchange access library - http://www.infinitec.de/software/nettoolbox/infinitec.exchange.aspx


"Raj" <Raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8F13BF9F-14AE-41C5-A67D-742F612E3EDB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Henning,

Can you confirm this is a suggestion from Microsoft?

Thanks & Regards

Rajesh

"Henning Krause" wrote:

Hello,

I have a working Security Descriptor here which looks like this:

UserA - Allow
UserA - Deny
Anonymous - Allow
Anonymous - Deny
UserB - Allow
UserB - Deny
Group A - Allow
Group B - Allow
Group A - Deny
Group B - Deny
Everyone - Allow

Best regards,
Henning Krause

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de
Exchange access library -
http://www.infinitec.de/software/nettoolbox/infinitec.exchange.aspx


"Raj" <Raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:F648384C-F0CC-476C-BC50-6E0C50BE0D50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Hennings,
>
>> I have fixed that in the current version. The thing is - currently, I >> am
>> ordering the anonymous group together with normal users - that is, it >> may
>> end up between two groups.
>>
>
> I didnt get you this. How 'anonymous ' end up between groups? if you > order
> the anonymous group together with normal users?
>
> Regards
>
> Rajesh
>
>
> "Henning Krause" wrote:
>
>> I have not taken a look at the sample code.
>>
>> However, I have my own logic to manipulate security descriptors (See >> my
>> exchange package - but the version on the net (0.95) is flawed - it >> will
>> not order the security descriptor correctly when groups are added).
>>
>
>> Up to now, I haven't ran into any issues with the systems manager.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Henning Krause
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de
>> Exchange access library -
>> http://www.infinitec.de/software/nettoolbox/infinitec.exchange.aspx
>>
>>
>> "Raj" <Raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:23E27345-C7C5-4E2C-9391-A71482683182@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Hi Henning,
>> >
>> > I also had the same feeling but why sample security code is breaking
>> > ESM
>> > if
>> > there are valid DLs as members!
>> > I think, the format used by sample security code is like this
>> >
>> > User1: Allow
>> > User1: Deny
>> > User2: Allow
>> > User2: Deny
>> > DL1: Allow
>> > DL2: Allow
>> > DL3: Allow
>> > Anonymous : Allow
>> > DL1: Deny
>> > DL2: Deny
>> > DL3: Deny
>> > Anonymous : Deny
>> > EveryOne: Allow
>> >
>> > Correct me if I am wrong. Is it possible for you to check what >> > really
>> > happening in your end with sample code.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Rajesh
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Henning Krause" wrote:
>> >
>> >> AFAIK, well known groups (albeit the Everyone and Anonymous) are
>> >> handled
>> >> equally to normal groups.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Henning Krause
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de
>> >> Exchange access library -
>> >> http://www.infinitec.de/software/nettoolbox/infinitec.exchange.aspx
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Raj" <Raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1C66D931-0A7E-4821-895A-036743785AFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> > Hi Henning,
>> >> >
>> >> > Please check for me. Thanks...
>> >> >
>> >> > also I tried this and working fine
>> >> >
>> >> > User1: Allow
>> >> > User1: Deny
>> >> > User2: Allow
>> >> > User2: Deny
>> >> > Anonymous : Allow
>> >> > Anonymous : Deny
>> >> > DL1: Allow
>> >> > DL2: Allow
>> >> > DL3: Allow
>> >> > DL1: Deny
>> >> > DL2: Deny
>> >> > DL3: Deny
>> >> > EveryOne: Allow
>> >> >
>> >> > I dont know how to order other well-know groups?(if any exists)
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks again
>> >> > Regards
>> >> >
>> >> > Rajesh
>> >> > "Henning Krause" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hello,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> well, if it does not break ESM, then it is certainly correct >> >> >> :-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I will look into this this evening...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Best regards,
>> >> >> Henning Krause
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de
>> >> >> Exchange access library -
>> >> >> http://www.infinitec.de/software/nettoolbox/infinitec.exchange.aspx
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Raj" <Raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:49BDB5AA-2C52-461A-8086-AA3D3D4E8D85@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> > HI Henning,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > odd and even means same
>> >> >> > DL1: Allow
>> >> >> > DL2: Allow
>> >> >> > DL3: Allow
>> >> >> > DL1: Deny
>> >> >> > DL2: Deny
>> >> >> > DL3: Deny
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > but what about anonymous? If i consider anonymous as a DL, ESM
>> >> >> > breaks!
>> >> >> > Sample security code do the same isnt it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So I cahnged ordering like this
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Anonymous : Allow
>> >> >> > Anonymous : Deny
>> >> >> > User1: Allow
>> >> >> > User1: Deny
>> >> >> > User2: Allow
>> >> >> > User2: Deny
>> >> >> > DL1: Allow
>> >> >> > DL2: Allow
>> >> >> > DL3: Allow
>> >> >> > DL1: Deny
>> >> >> > DL2: Deny
>> >> >> > DL3: Deny
>> >> >> > EveryOne: Allow
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Is that right?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks for the response
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Rajesh
>> >> >> > "Henning Krause" wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Hello,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> what do you mean with odd mask and even mask?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> DL must be ordered first by allow mask and then deny mask
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> User1: Allow
>> >> >> >> User1: Deny
>> >> >> >> User2: Allow
>> >> >> >> User2: Deny
>> >> >> >> DL1: Allow
>> >> >> >> DL2: Allow
>> >> >> >> DL3: Allow
>> >> >> >> DL1: Deny
>> >> >> >> DL2: Deny
>> >> >> >> DL3: Deny
>> >> >> >> EveryOne: Allow
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Best regards,
>> >> >> >> Henning Krause
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de
>> >> >> >> Exchange access library -
>> >> >> >> http://www.infinitec.de/software/nettoolbox/infinitec.exchange.aspx
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Raj" <Raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:B3C8564B-DE29-4680-9033-845687356761@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> >> > Please help me on this. I am not able to move forward . If >> >> >> >> > Dls
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > members
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > the folder, I can update folder but getting 'Window handle
>> >> >> >> > exception'
>> >> >> >> > when
>> >> >> >> > try to add/update folder permission using ESM. This is >> >> >> >> > format
>> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> > use
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > write
>> >> >> >> > user, groups and well know groups
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > 1. Sort First Users Second Groups and Alias, third
>> >> >> >> > others(well
>> >> >> >> > knowns)
>> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> > last '/Everyone'
>> >> >> >> > 2. Clean Masks
>> >> >> >> > 2. Create user's SD for each mask
>> >> >> >> > 3. Create Group, Alias, and Well know groups(except
>> >> >> >> > 'everyone')
>> >> >> >> > SD
>> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> > each
>> >> >> >> > even mask
>> >> >> >> > 4. Create Group, Alias, and well know groups(Except
>> >> >> >> > 'everyone')
>> >> >> >> > SD
>> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> > each
>> >> >> >> > odd mask
>> >> >> >> > 5. Create SD for 'Every one' for all mask...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Any problem in that ordering?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Please help.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Thanks in Advance
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Rajesh
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Raj" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> After updating a folder member (only DL ) using sample >> >> >> >> >> code
>> >> >> >> >> provided
>> >> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> Exchange SDK, tried to update the same folder using ESM >> >> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> got
>> >> >> >> >> WIndows
>> >> >> >> >> handle exception!. If no group present in the folder, i am
>> >> >> >> >> able
>> >> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> update
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> folder member without any issue! any one face same issue?
>> >> >> >> >> what
>> >> >> >> >> might
>> >> >> >> >> be
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> problem?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Could you please send me Latest LoadSaveDacl.js file and
>> >> >> >> >> Security.js
>> >> >> >> >> file
>> >> >> >> >> ....
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Rajesh
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PF Admin tool & Administrative Rights
    ... Best regards, ... Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de ... > Actually I am testing with our lab server and the Ex admin path is ... > I tried to update the security descriptor for the same path but getting ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.development)
  • Re: Sample security Code is not working!
    ... Anonymous - Deny ... UserB - Allow ... Best regards, ... not order the security descriptor correctly when groups are added). ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.development)
  • Re: WORKBOOKS.OPEN (URL) - How to trap a connection-lost/ timeout
    ... > I need to retrieve the market data from a remote location, so there's no> business alternative for me. ... Either the exchange website or a Bloomberg/> Reuters machine on the network. ... I need a way for> my macro to exit if it does not receive a response from a remote computer for> a file request. ... >> Regards Ron de Bruin ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
  • Re: Use Identity for COM+ application
    ... regevent.vbs add "onsave" cmcMailAsync.AsyncEvents ... Best regards, ... Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de ... "Henning Krause" wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.development)
  • Re: Monsey law (Was Re: ELIAHU ROOFF HAS LEFT THIS GROUP
    ... >> with someone from his yeshiva who lives in that particular section of ... >> Best regards, ... I didn't see the shorts law listed under New York (on the above website), ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading