Re: Security on single forest domain design
- From: "Cary Shultz" <cwshultz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 08:50:39 -0500
Here is where I mention Restricted Groups and here is where Paul mentions
startup script....
And let's not forget our friend 'cusrmgr'. I *think* that KJ would mention
this....
The problem with Restricted Groups is that there is one of two behaviors
(but not really a choice). The default behavior is to flush and add the
group that you determine. There is a fix for this that needs to be applied
to each and every system. Then the behavior is that it will simply add to
whatever is already there. This will prevent anyone else from being added
that your 'local focus group' (read: local Administrators group on each PC).
The problem with the startup script is that it does not prevent other
users/groups from being added to your 'local focus group'.
So, whatever works better for you is the solution that you should choose.
HTH,
--
Cary W. Shultz
Roanoke, VA 24012
"agcastle2000" <agcastle2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:93E4C4B8-B50F-4062-9AA5-18692CDE3441@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Paul,
I thought you're based in the US.
I agree on what you said.. sometimes security is impractical.
The thing is that for the other Admins not be able to mess with the AD
structure, it looks like the only choice is to remove their memberships
from
Enterprise Admins, Domain Admins and Schema Admins. Right?
It is worth mentioning that as the Domain Admins is automatically added to
the local group Administrators on each member workstations or servers, by
removing the other Windows Adminstrators from Domain Admins would also
remove
their ability to administer to these machines. grrh. This is the dark side
of
it.
This leads me to ask whether it is possible in GP to populate the local
group Administrators with users.
Regards,
Archie
It's not so early over here in the UK... ;-)
But it is a Saturday, so half of your comment is correct <g>
Sorry I couldn't be more help. But this really does depend on so many
factors, that it is something that you have to plan and design yourself.
You can get advice from people here and whitepapers, etc. but at the end
of
the day, sometimes security is impractical. And other times it's
practical,
if you have understanding management who are willing to pay lots of money
for no perceived benefit whatsoever...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Security on single forest domain design
- From: Paul Williams [MVP]
- Re: Security on single forest domain design
- References:
- Re: Security on single forest domain design
- From: Paul Williams [MVP]
- Re: Security on single forest domain design
- From: Paul Williams [MVP]
- Re: Security on single forest domain design
- From: Paul Williams [MVP]
- Re: Security on single forest domain design
- Prev by Date: Re: Possible routing issue
- Next by Date: Re: Problems with XP SP2
- Previous by thread: Re: Security on single forest domain design
- Next by thread: Re: Security on single forest domain design
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|