The gist of it should be:
Sysvol\Domain\ - Scan
Sysvol\Domain\DO_NOT_REMOVE_NtFrs_PreInstall_Directory\ - Don't Scan
Sysvol\Staging\ - Don't Scan
Sysvol\Staging Areas\ - Don't Scan
Sysvol\Sysvol\<domain name> - Don't Scan

So, effectively, you only need to set the 4 folder exclusions.  The
reasoning for the Staging* folders and the PreInstall folder is because the
files created/deleted there are of a transactional nature.  The
Sysvol\Sysvol\<domain name>\ folder is a junction point of Sysvol\Domain\,
so there's no point in scanning it.  You'll just end up scanning the same
files twice.  For the junction point, I don't believe there's anything
inherently wrong with scanning files twice; it's just unnecessary.  So if
you're limited to how many folder exclusions you can set I would say that's
one you could skip, if necessary.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sysvol and AV exclusions
> 
> Hi Brett
> 
> Thanks for your detailed response.  I see you've also managed 
> to sort out the formatting of the table in the article.  Oh, 
> what power you wield! :-)
> 
> The main issue I have is that the article introduces some "new"
> exclusions.  I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the 
> general approach before this article came out was, "If your 
> AV product is FRS-compliant then include SYSVOL in scans.".  
> I am fully aware of the effects of a virus being replicated 
> by SYSVOL, having seen it first-hand.  SYSVOL does a great 
> job of moving a virus around a network very quickly. :-)  So 
> it's important to scan SYSVOL (or at least parts thereof).
> 
> Going back to the issue, the 822158 article sets out 
> exclusions, but doesn't indicate why they should be exlcuded. 
>  In other words, what is the risk of including them?  This is 
> relevant for at least one major AV product vendor, which has 
> a (somewhat stupid) low limit on the number of files and 
> folders that can be excluded on any one server.  I'm also not 
> convinced that the AV product I'm thinking of can perform the 
> level of granularity of inclusion/exclusion suggested in the table.
> 
> I can sort of understand why the staging areas would be 
> excluded (compressed files, possibility of locking), but why 
> exclude %systemroot%\sysvol and %systemroot%\sysvol\sysvol?  
> I can't see anything in my test environment that would pose 
> any problems by scanning these folders.
> 
> Call me a control freak, but I just don't like seeing a 
> statement such as, "Do not scan the following files and 
> folders." with no additional explanation.
> 
> Tony
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2005 10:47 p.m.
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Sysvol and AV exclusions
> 
> 
> The articles should not be inconsistent.
> The 822158 does mention 814263 (see bullet 2).
> 
> 284947 - is how to detect and diagnose excessive FRS replication.
> Noting it might be caused by Anti-Virus software.  And 
> mentioning how to recover.  
> It is not SYSVOL specific, it is FRS specific.  But sincej 
> SYSVOL is an FRS share, so it applies to SYSVOL, if this 
> should happen to your SYSVOL.
> 
> 814263 - is about Anti-Virus programs that are compatible 
> with FRS from a generic sense.  Againt not SYSVOL specific, 
> FRS specific.  You will want one of these programs to 
> continue on with your configuration of your DC's Anti-Virus 
> program with 822158.
> 
> 822158 - Is the penultimate article for DCs and anti-virus 
> software. You need to scroll over the very poorly formatted 
> table, near the end.  
> You'll note some part of the sysvol folder, are to be scanned 
> and other parts are excluded.  I believe the parts with the 
> actual files (that people can execute during logon due to 
> policy) are to be scanned.
> 
> Let me know if you have any issues, or find my statements 
> inaccurate ...
> 
> FYI, it is important to get a good anti-virus program (per 
> 814263) and configure it correctly (per 822158) to scan your 
> SYSVOL shares, because I've know a major company to get a 
> virus in it's SYSVOL, such that everyone who logged on would 
> get the virus.  This is very nasty.  The first thing the 
> admin does to check out such an issue is ... log on to a DC, 
> which may not have actually been infected with a running copy 
> of the virus.  If you can get ahold of a virus'd exe, I'd 
> drop it on your SYSVOL just to check it works.
> 
> Cheers,
> BrettSh [msft]
> 
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and 
> confers no rights.
> 
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Tony Murray wrote:
> 
> > Hi all
> >  
> > For a while now, I've been including/excluding Sysvol from AV scans 
> > based on the recommendations in these articles.
> >  
> > Antivirus programs may modify security descriptors and 
> cause excessive
> 
> > replication of FRS data in SYSVOL and DFS
> >  
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=284947
> > <http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=284947>
> > 
> > Antivirus, backup, and disk optimization programs that are 
> compatible 
> > with the File Replication Service
> > 
> > 
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815263/
> > 
> > In other words, if the AV software is not FRS-compliant 
> then I exlude 
> > Sysvol from scans.
> >  
> > However, I recently came across the following article:
> >  
> > Virus scanning recommendations on a Windows 2000 or on a Windows 
> > Server
> > 2003 domain controller
> >  
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822158
> > <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822158>
> >  
> > This includes a recommendation to exclude Sysvol, but 
> doesn't really 
> > say why.  The article doesn't make any reference to the KB284947 and
> > KB815263 articles, so I don't know whether the recommendations are 
> > based on that information or new information.
> >  
> > Can anyone clarify the situation for me?
> >  
> > Tony
> > 
> 
> 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/
> 
> ##############################################################
> ##########
> ####
> This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content 
> and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal at Gen-i 
> ##############################################################
> ##########
> ####
> 
> 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/

Reply via email to