We are trying to figure out what we need to back up for Active Directory as
part of our disaster recovery plan. Is backing up just the System State on
a domain controller enough or do we need the entire server? Should all
domain controllers be backed up or is one per domain OK?
Right,
I fetched the doc as per Michael, but the part I am still confused about is
your second sentence.
So if an unauthenticated user via a non-Windows kiosk accesses the site for
which no windows
based auth is setup, but application level authentication, then they do or
don't need a cal?
It’ll work just fine, but there is a security issue that requires some extra
steps.
Its discussed here:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/stdqry/archive/2012/04/03/dhcp-server-in-dcs-and-dns-registrations.aspx
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On
Behalf Of
I view it like this:
If I have to log into a DC to gain access to the site. I require a CAL.
If I log in but not to a DC then I do not require a CAL.
Regardless of the back end.
If you use your scope then someone like Verizon or Xbox would be broke paying
for all the CALs they would require
Going to go out on a limb here and suggest Xbox doesn't have to buy Cals, or
any software from Microsoft. :)
But your explanation is well written and nails it pretty well I believe.
-Original Message-
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On
inline
-Original Message-
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On
Behalf Of Joseph L. Casale
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:28 AM
To: 'ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com'
Subject: [NTSysADM] RE: IIS and cals
Right,
I fetched the doc as per
https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms14-nov
For simply protecting AD as opposed to real DR, you could just back up the
system state, but a full server backup isn’t much bigger if it’s a DC that
does nothing else, so why not do that? In any case, back up every single
DC at staggered times so that you have a version of AD that is as recent
*(^*# ^$*#^
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Kennedy, Jim kennedy...@elyriaschools.org
wrote:
https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms14-nov
You knew it was coming...
*ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker
*Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations Information Security) for
the SMB market...*
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Kennedy, Jim kennedy...@elyriaschools.org
wrote:
*If you use your scope then someone like Verizon or Xbox would be broke
paying for all the CALs they would require for all the users needing access
to their sites but not using Active Directory.*
Not so...
There are separate SKUs for the products that will be internet connected
where the number
Standard guidance is at least 2 DCs from each Domain in the forest. There are a
number of resources on TechNet including a detailed whitepaper that can be used
as a basis for planning and testing.
Basics- http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc771290(v=ws.10).aspx
Also-
Thanks, I’ll hold on to this as well.
*From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Free, Bob
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:18 AM
*To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com
*Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] Backing up Active Directory
Standard
Disclaimer: This is all YMMV, Caveat emptor but I thought I'd share what I dug
up.
--As I was preparing to send I see the bulletin has been re-released as
expected so much of this is likely moot.
My understanding is that at least one of the roots of the root of the problem
is the new cipher
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms14-066.aspx
V2.0 (November 18, 2014): Bulletin revised to announce the reoffering of the
2992611 update to systems running Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows Server
2012. The reoffering addresses known issues that a small number of
It's been quite a while and I've not done a lot of this type of thing. So help
would be appreciated:
My dad's hard drive died (4 year old HP desktop). So I took out the drive and
slaved it to one of my machines at home. It sees (2) partitions one of which is
the recovery partition and it sees
By and large we didn’t have issues with the patch on Windows products, but we
have some 3rd party products that do LDAP look ups against our DCs and those
all pretty much broke so we had to take it off the DC’s. It stayed on on
everything else. With the out of band and the rerelease, we are
ms14-068 is pretty scary and kind of dwarfs it in my mind.
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Peck
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:54 AM
To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Problems with the schannel update?
sounds like external connector license for IIS, depending of course
http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/10/licensing-how-to-when-do-i-need-a-client-access-license-cal.aspx
If you have Windows Servers configured to run a “web workload” these
users will not require CALs
19 matches
Mail list logo
