Morning all, (at least here it is) When users or groups are protected by the adminSDholder object they "just" end up with the DACL from it where inheritance is disabled so the objects don't get any DACL from a parent OU Another approach is: When it is possible to have those custom users/groups in a same OU without any other object, do that and configure strong protective DACL on the OU those to-be-protected-users/groups are in. You can ask yourself: why are those groups you want to protect in the OU where stuff has been delegated? If they are protected the delegates will not be able to manage them, so you might as well put them in a separate OU configure other DACL. Remember that an OU structure is based upon three things: (1) Delegation of control (2) Hidding objects (3) Applying GPOs The groups you want to protect could fit in (1) and/or (2) So if you have the possible to do what I have mentioned here, it is preferred to do that instead of what I have said earlier Cheers. Jorge
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Almeida Pinto, Jorge de Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 11:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [Slightly OT] Protecting objects not covered by AdminSDHolder To make a protected member of a protected group a NON-PROTECTED object you need to: * remove his membership from the protected group * enable inheritance again on the object * set the admincount attribute to 0 or to <not set> What is said is that by removing the member from a protected group, inheritance will not be changed automatically and the admincount attribute will also not be changed automatically. All must be changed manually and when reverting the object back to a non-protected oject it is best to do all three! So, yes I also agree with those recommendations Jorge ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David Cliffe Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 9:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [Slightly OT] Protecting objects not covered by AdminSDHolder Jorge --> "The group membership of a protected group is the criteria the process looks at, not the attribute value of 1. The admincount attribute is just an administrative measure for the process that says "been here", nothing else." This implies that if you later go back and remove a user from any protected groups, you can then go set his ACL back to what you want, and not have to worry about the admincount attribute still having a value of 1, right? Only reason I ask is because I could have sworn I've seen recommendations on this list to set that attribute back to 0 after removing all protected group memberships, so just double checking. Maybe there were other factors involved in those previous recommendations which I didn't read close enough! Also, interesting approach to the original poster's question. Thanks! -DaveC ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Almeida Pinto, Jorge de Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Protecting objects not covered by AdminSDHolder That sounds logical. However the adminsdholder process only looks at users and groups that are defined in AD as protected objects. As mentioned in MS-KBQ817433 - "Delegated permissions are not available and inheritance is automatically disabled" it is possible to include or exclude some of the default admin groups (account operators, print operators ,etc.) The process that checks object against the adminSDHolder object only looks at that definition of protected objects and in case of groups it will also look at its members. It resets the DACL to match the DACL of the adminSDHolder object and sets the admincount attribute to 1. The group membership of a protected group is the criteria the process looks at, not the attribute value of 1. The admincount attribute is just an administrative measure for the process that says "been here", nothing else. So, to add custom groups as protected groups in AD, MS should see if it is interesting to implement in Longhorn. There is a way however to implement your own protected groups. (I think it will work) How to do that? * Take a protected group (weakest one possible) * Create a distribution group with a name like "Custom_Protected_Groups_Definition" and make that a member of the actual protected group * Put all custom users and groups directly into the distribution group that need to be protected by adminSDHolder Now what will happen? The adminSDHolder process sees the memberships (transitive included) and protects them. When a user logs on, he will be a member of the distribution group "Custom_Protected_Groups_Definition" but the SID of the actual (security) protected group will not be in the access token of the user. If a distribution group is a member of a security group, the members of the distribution group will not be transitive security members of the security protected group as the distribution group blocks the security group membership There is a catch however! -> DO NOT EVER CONVERT THE DISTRIBUTION GROUP TO A SECURITY GROUP! (doing this will lift the security group membership block and the users/group will suddendly get the SID of the protected security group in their access token!) I agree with Al you should be very careful changing the configuration of the DACL of the adminSDHolder object! Remember that object protects the default (very strong) users and groups! Cheers, Jorge (cool: I think I just wrote something nice for my blog) ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 7:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Protecting objects not covered by AdminSDHolder That's interesting. As far as I can tell, the adminsdholder is just a process that runs on the PDCe that wakes up and checks for all objects that have admincount set to 1. For each it finds, it ensures that they reflect the permissions set according to the adminsdholder reference. My first pass at this would be to do likewise with a custom app vs. trying to piggy back on the adminsdholder routine. The reason I say this is that I wouldn't want any kind of confusion in the settings and it's generally not a recommended solution to modify the adminsdholder. Can be very bad if you do so incorrectly. Any reason a script or other app wouldn't be a choice? I realize you're looking for apps that already exist first, but just curious what the boundaries are. :) Al >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: [ActiveDir] Protecting objects not covered by AdminSDHolder >Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:16:24 -0000 > >[I appreciate and understand the role of adminsdholder and sdprop and >which objects it protects and how etc etc.] > >I'm sure the answer to my question will be 'no' but I have to ask in any >case :) > >Can additional groups and/or user objects be added to the scope of >sdprop and adminsdholder, so that they are protected as are other >objects, such as members of the Domain Admins group? > >I have additional groups which are protected today by virtue of being in >a segregated OU, where special permissions are applied. I would rather >protect these objects with adminsdholder, which I find to be a more >robust (and enforced) approach. > >Is this possible? Are there plans to add the functionality in later >editions (Longhorn) perhaps? > >Thanks, >neil > > >___________________________ >Neil Ruston >Global Technology Infrastructure >Nomura International plc > > > >PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email 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/ To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. 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/
