Yeah, I was just wondering if you saw any issues with putting it on a box across a WAN link. I have never looked into that before so I was just wondering your opinion on it for my own curiosity.
Phil
On 10/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't get your drift. There is no requirement for the web server to be in
the same location as the virtual server.
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCP+I
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Renouf
Sent: Wed 10/19/2005 8:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices
Would you put the admin site on a server not at that location? Because if you
wouldn't then that won't help much since if you had another server to put the
admin site on at the remote location then that would be a good place to put
the f/p services.
Phil
On 10/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can separate the 2 roles. You can put the admin site on a non-dc
server.
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCP+I
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick
Sent: Wed 10/19/2005 6:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices
Strange, I was just having this conversation today with a co-worker.
:)
My thoughts? I'd say make it a GC and put the f/p in the virtual.
Why?
because you still need to protect the physical, but the virtual you
can give
out access to. The downside is that the virtual machine requires IIS
(in
Microsoft products) meaning you have a vector for attack. But nothing
that
requires changing the security otherwise for the GC.
I prefer not to put IIS on a GC for security reasons, but if you can
get away
without it then I should think that this method would provide greater
ability
to secure it. Keep in mind that physical access is still warranted.
It's
just that you wouldn't have to worry about somebody taking the GC
home on a
USB key like they otherwise could ;)
It's not pretty no matter which way you turn IMHO. Could be better.
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch Offices
I assume you are refering to the fact that the the host could
be
compromised over the network and the virtual hard drive or virtual
machine
itself simply copied. (Just for the record, this is covered in the
white
paper. Did not mean to imply that it is not. Security in this respect
is
refered over to NTFS permissions).
So given that you could have a single physical machine at a
branch
office and that you must have a DC and F/P service, what is the
prefered
configuration?
-- nme
P.S. thanks for keeping this thread going.
________________________________
From: Dean Wells [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:42 PM
To: Send - AD mailing list
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch
Offices
"Does placing the DC inside a virtual machine add any
security? Would it be harder for someone with physical access to
compromise
the DC? The white paper does not really make this clear. Also, I am
assuming
that a host machine would be a domain member, right? Does it
authenticate off
the virtual DC?"
<Dean>
Virtual DCs effectively weaken the broader-definition
of
security in a number of ways including the context of physical access
...
this is due primarily to the relative ease with which the entire DC's
state
can be duplicated, subsequently, becoming portable and reproduced in
a
running state elsewhere with little to no effort.
The host machine has no bearing ... it's rather like
saying
"the rack in which the server is physically housed has to be a domain
member"
(or any further extension of that particular metaphor). Keep in mind
the VM
(for the most part) doesn't even realize it's virtual.
</Dean>
--
Dean Wells
MSEtechnology
* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://msetechnology.com <http://msetechnology.com/>
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 12:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch
Offices
Thanks for the thoughts. And thanks Tony for the
reference --
just finished reading it.
Unfortunately, deploying the DC at HQ or simply
authenticating over the WAN is not really an option. The WAN links
are ok
(and getting better) but are located in places where environmental
(as in the
weather) conditions often cause short interruptions.
Does placing the DC inside a virtual machine add any
security? Would it be harder for someone with physcial access to
compromise
the DC? The white paper does not really make this clear. Also, I am
assuming
that a host machine would be a domain member, right? Does it
authenticate off
the virtual DC? [1]
Thanks again.
-- nme
[1] This sort of reminds me of the scene in Animal
House when
they talk about the "whole universe as we know it existing under the
fingernail of some other giant being..." Whoa, dude!
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in
Branch
Offices
Other important factors in this scenario must
be the
physical and logical security of the server housing the DC role.
1. Will the server be securely locked away in
the
branches? If not, do not deploy a DC.
2. Do you trust the file server admins to have
physical access to the server hosting the DC role?
3. Who administers the server that hosts the
file and
DC roles? Are they also trusted?
When designing the branch office, I would
always ask
the questions below, too:
1. Is a local DC required? i.e. what are the
drawbacks if a DC is not deployed?
2. Is logon/startup traffic over the WAN
larger than
replication traffic over the WAN? If not, consider not deploying a
local DC.
3. Does a local DC offer redundancy in the
event of a
WAN failure? If other apps are accessed over the WAN, then consider
deploying
the DC at a central location and not at the branch.
hth,
neil
___________________________
Neil Ruston
Global Technology Infrastructure
Nomura International plc
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: 13 October 2005 01:12
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in
Branch
Offices
Here's a link to a Microsoft document that
covers
what you need to do to run a production DC on Virtual Server 2005.
http://tinyurl.com/5enjd
Tony
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger
Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2005 11:30 a.m.
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ActiveDir] Virtual Servers in Branch
Offices
Hi -
Just to follow up on the design thread....
Since I am
placing DCs in small branch offices is there a value in using Virtual
Server
2005 to create separate virtual boxes (DC & file server) running on
the same
physical box? Some users have administrative access to the file
server, and
I'd love to keep them off the DCs. I am also curious about optimal
physical
and virtual drive configurations for such a box.
I reviewed the thread here about Virtual
Domain
Controllers but it seemed to focus on using them as backups. I am
talking
about production.
Any thoughts most welcome.
-- nme
________________________________
This communication, including any attachments,
is
confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you
should not
read it -
please contact me immediately, destroy it, and
do not
copy or
use any part of this communication or disclose
anything about it.
Thank You.
Please note that this communication does not
designate an information system for the purposes of the NZ Electronic
Transactions Act 2002..
This e-mail message has been scanned for
Viruses and
Content and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal at Gen-i
________________________________
PLEASE READ: The information contained in this
is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If
you are
not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the
sender
immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy,
distribute
or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a
secure
method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not,
to the
extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for (a) the
accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or
similar
malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s) to
it. If
verification of this
email is sought then please request a hard
copy.
Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be
treated or
relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views or
opinions
that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent
those of
NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is not a
recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related
financial
instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to
private
customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered
Office: 1
St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group
of
companies.
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/
