Mylo, I'll answer this, and when joe gets back online later, I'm sure that he'll correct me. <j/k joe!>
In my mind, you have two choices - a secure and workable solution with separation with a potential of added complexity, or a much less secure, combined environment. I have a saying that goes with this: Security != Easy, or "Security and ease of use are diametrically opposed" Everyone has to make decisions based upon what their sensitivity to risk is. Rick -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mylo Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 11:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] My endless question day continued- Exchange attri butes Apologies for jumping into a semi-dead thread with some OT questions .. Joe, you mentioned the following: Exchange never would have been brought into the main production forest, it would have been in a dedicated single domain resource forest that was entirely managed by the Exchange admins. Are you saying that the Resource (Exchange) Forest is the only workable solution in your mind that provides the necessary separation? I can see it from the whole service autonomy and isolation argument, but the fact that you need to throw provisioning into the equation, issues such as potential single points of failure with MIIS/IIFP, added complexity etc.... surely that single AD forest/domain is more preferable :-) Cheers, Mylo joe wrote: >In my last job we sort of did. I say sort of because you get the point where >you are going against AD best practices in how many ACEs you are sticking in >the directory. The mechanisms we were thinking about to get around some of >the issues such as modifying property sets had PSS looking at us and shaking >their heads indicating that doing so could certainly impact their thoughts >on how supportable we were. Basically we granted I think one property set >and a few more attributes to the Exchange Service Admins but didn't do any >of the denies to remove some property set rights they shouldn't have had, >say like ability to modify UPNs etc. > >The specific details are lost to me now on what exactly we did but I wasn't >thrilled with the options. > >If I had it all over to do again for that company, Exchange never would have >been brought into the main production forest, it would have been in a >dedicated single domain resource forest that was entirely managed by the >Exchange admins. > > joe > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rascher, Raymond >Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 7:41 PM >To: '[email protected]' >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] My endless question day continued- Exchange attri >butes > >Did you implement a Split permissions model for exchange? If so I would like >to hear how you ACL'd the directory. > >Also, if anyone has experience creating and using permission sets and can >point me in the right direction that would be appreciated. > > >Thanks, >Ray >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe >Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 6:12 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] My endless question day continued- Exchange >attributes > >Strictly according to Microsoft, Full Mailbox access given to a user should >NOT give the ability to send a message as that user. However, this has been >broken I think more than it has worked; broken meaning users with Full >Mailbox access on a mailbox but not Send As rights can send as that user. I >don't even recall right now if the latest functionality in E2K3 is broken or >it works. I think it is actually broken but it depends on HOW you try to >send the email. I do know that it has flipped back and forth. > >Receive as from everything I have seen is ONLY used in the config container. >When applied to a user object in the domain partition it doesn't seem to >impart anything. I could easily be wrong, but that has been my experience. > >Permissions written to the config partition can impact an entire DB, an >entire store, an entire server, an entire SG, or an entire AG, or all of >Exchange, it really depends on what level you put it. You certainly can't >set user level perms there. The perms set in the config are the ones you see >that show inherited when you look at the actual mailbox permissions. > >Again when modifying the ACL on a mailbox in the supported way (i.e. through >mailboxrights), you have to understand that if the mailbox is instantiated, >you are actually writing permissions to the store via MAPI. These are then >later shipped out and stamped on the msExchMailboxSecurityDescriptor. If the >mailbox isn't instantiated, then you will be writing to the AD attribute >directly and you will quickly notice that no inherited permissions are >listed, it should be, and it has been a bit since I looked, simply SELF with >access on the ACL. > >Permissions for Exchange are extremely convoluted and weird to say the >least. nTSecurityDescriptor permissions applied to config Exchange service >objects come into play, permissions in msExchMailboxSecurityDescriptor come >into play, permissions set in the store for the mailbox itself come into >play, MAPI properties which are actually just fields in the mailbox pretend >to be permissions (or roles) and come into play at the calendar and other >folder level, and even permissions set on the nTSecurityDescriptor attribute >of the user objects comes into play. Specifically in the last case is Send >As which is the permission for someone to send a message as someone and have >it look like it came directly from the person. It doesn't stop there though, >you also have publicDelegates attribute which grants permissions to Send On >Behalf of someone else. You also have basically a "hack" to allow for hidden >membership on DLs. There are other things. Every time I dig more into >Exchange I tend to bang my forehead a lot. Consquently my forehead is 8.63% >(+/- .005%) flatter than it was prior to me having to worry at all about >Exchange. > > > > joe > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kern, Tom >Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:20 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] My endless question day continued- Exchange >attributes > >I've read(haven't tested) in the Exchange Server Cookbook that giving Full >mailbox access in ADUC on the user attrib, that doen't automatically give >Send As perm. > >Also, excuse me for being clueless, but I always thought Receive As gave you >the right to open a mailbox and view it, when set on the mailbox via ADUC? >Is that wrong? > >When you write "on the config container ACLs...", thats setting that right >on the enitre store not just one mailbox. >Aside from editing the msFxchMailboxSecurityDescriptor, is there any other >way to modify the ACLs on just one mailbox? > >Thanks > >-----Original Message----- >From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:19 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] My endless question day continued- Exchange >attributes > > >Receive As rights would be on the AD Object ACL, not the Exchange mailbox >ACL. From what I have seen, that won't do anything for you. The only place I >have seen Receive As do anything is when it is in combination with Send As >on the config container ACLs for Exchange and then the pair are converted to >Full Mailbox rights inside of the store. > >If you set permissions on an non-instantiated mailbox again, the permissions >are set on the msExchMailboxSecurityDescriptor attribute. That is supposed >to be used for setting up the initial store permissions, HOWEVER, I have >seen this work pretty flakey through the years so I have gotten in the habit >of not setting permissions on mailboxes until I know they have been >instantiated in the store. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kern, Tom >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:44 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] My endless question day continued- Exchange >attributes > >If the box is not instantiated then when you edit that attribute, it doesn't >get mirrored back to the mailbox in the store. >That's what I've seen and read. >Just trying to confirm that. > >So if I "create" a mailbox and give another user "receive as" rights before >the first user has opened outlook or received an email, that won't be >reflected on the mailbox store after he/she has had the box instantiated. > >Is that correct? >Just curious. > >Thanks >-------------------------- >Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net) > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
