Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: "Herb Martin" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:57:21 -0500
"Pegasus" <I.can@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ONMee0RsHHA.4796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Herb Martin" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:exh23TRsHHA.484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Pegasus" <I.can@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eGVHXKRsHHA.1408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NTFS permissions are sufficiently powerful to keep out
unauthorised users. I'd be interested to hear why you are
so strongly in favour of a belt-and-braces approach.
I already gave you the why -- re-read the message.
I was hoping for a little more substance. When I apply
permissions then I check them, same as I check all my
other work. If I detect a mistake then I prefer to correct
it instead of adding a second security layer which offers
far less flexibility or granularity than ACLs.
Security principle: Never grant more security privileges than
necessary, even with the INTENT to restrict them later.
Always grant the minimum privileges at each opportunity.
Alwasy grant privileges to ONLY those who specifically need
them.
You may in fact get the NTFS perfect -- but the fact that you
have to check them (and you should) implies you COULD be
wrong. Don't take such chances unnecessarily and don't recommend
that others (who may not be as careful as you) do so as a GENERAL
rule.
Recommend the tightest possible (practical) settings, with privileges
being granted as EXCEPTIONS whenever possible.
This is the way good security works more reliably.
--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)
Just because I ***might*** forget to do up my belt does
not necessarily mean that I wear braces.
It does if you really care about your security, your business and
your resources, as opposed to the mild discomfort or embarrassment
that will ensue if your pants are droopy or even fall off.
And notice, it's actually a figure of speech to refer to someone who is
serious about getting things right as "a belt and suspenders man".
It seems you do
(or at least you recommend to the OP that he does).
Also notice that "belt and suspenders" must be added, but we are
discussing built-in security and my GENERAL recommendation is
to NEVER give MORE privilege than necessary and never give
privileges to people (groups) who don't require that access.
People who are serious about security follow this as a general
principle:
Lock everything down; grant only the privileges required.
.
- References:
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Pegasus
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Herb Martin
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Pegasus
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Herb Martin
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Pegasus
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Herb Martin
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- From: Pegasus
- Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Prev by Date: Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Next by Date: Re: Folder Redirection Issues -Server 2003
- Previous by thread: Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Next by thread: Re: Share Permissions vs NTFS Permissions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|