Re: GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- From: "kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:33:26 -0700
Florian Frommherz [MVP] wrote:
Howdie!OP;
Ryan schrieb:
When I set up a GPO for SBS=Computers, if that GPO has any changes
under the "user" side, they don't get applied. But If I add that
same GPO to SBSUsers those user side changes get applied. And
surprise, if I check gpresult out, it says both under the Computer
and User results that the GPO was applied.
That's how Group Policy works. User objects only apply User
Configuration Settings and computer objects only apply Computer
Configuration settings. "Administrative Templates" for example - those
are plain registry modifications to the system. All "User
Configuration" settings you see, they are merged into the
"HKEY_CURRENT_USER" hive of the registry (on user logon) whereas the
"Computer Configuration" is merged into "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE" (on
computer startup). There are different security contexts, as a user
wouldn't be allowed to make changes to the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE hive.
Same thing with scripts in Group Policy. Startup scripts run in the
context of "SYSTEM", whereas Logon/Logoff scripts run in the context
of the user logging in.
You can think of this as an architectural issue. User objects will
only apply User Configuration settings and ignore the computer
settings, computer objects only look at the computer configuration
settings.
Is there not a way to have both Computer/User GPO changes in the same
GPO and have them both apply without having the GPO linked under both
Computer AND user? Or is that even the right way to do it? Or for
that matter a GOOD way?
Hum - only if you put all you objects, both user and computer objects
into one OU and link all your stuff there. But I wouldn't do that.
Seperating the objects and structuring them makes administration a lot
easier. Why would you want that?
SBS by design seperates users and computers into specific OUs for
administrative purposes. Should you want a single GPO to apply to both, you
should link it at "MyBusiness" OU so that it applies to both the
"Computers\SBSComputers" OU and the "Users\SBSUsers" OU beneath.
For more granular computer or user GP, create an OU under the respective SBS
provided OU and move the objects down.
You could have a look at "Loopback Processing" though. Loopback's for
Terminal Server environments for example - it makes computer settings
look at the user settings linked to its scope and apply them. This can
be used for environments where you'd like to have a specific user
settings enforced on machines, no matter who logs on.
Sorry if this is confusing. I'm wracking my brain trying to
comprehend how this works. I'd figure if you made a GPO it would
see what you wanted to apply and apply it where necessary, not make
you stick it under two categories to get the job done.
I think you need to see this from a different perspective: you can
have two configuration aspects: for users and for machines.
For the machines, you can define a baseline "security" or set of
configuration settings that would apply for departments like "finance"
or "developers". Those settings stick with the machine.
Then there's another setting that needs to stick with the users like
application they need or desktop modifications (like "Hide Control
Panel") that you don't want to have on all machines or all users but
for several ones (e.g. those evil intens always trying to break
security).
cheers,
Florian
--
/kj
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- From: Florian Frommherz [MVP]
- Re: GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- References:
- GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- From: Ryan
- Re: GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- From: Florian Frommherz [MVP]
- GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- Prev by Date: Re: GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- Next by Date: Re: Domain Policy will not allow people to connect using TerminalServices
- Previous by thread: Re: GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- Next by thread: Re: GPO question. Probably an obvious answer.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading