Thanks for the feedback everyone!

Jorge - I like the idea of nesting inside a DL - we had considered
nesting into print ops but decided against it. Your approach has the
same end result with none (fewer?) of the issues. Can you confirm that
sdprop only changes ACLs for the well known protected objects? i.e. if I
manually change the admincount value to 1 on some other object, then am
I correct in assuming that sdprop will not touch that object?

Al - we had also discussed using a script or other to mimic
adminsdholder, but then why re-invent the wheel if native tools can
achieve the same goal? I appreciate your concerns re changing
adminsdholder - I was hoping that the admincount value could be changed
manually for all my protected objects and thus cause sdprop to re-ACL
these objects. [see above]

Our preferred approach right now is to simply place the 'protected'
objects inside a special OU and hide/protect those objects with
appropriate perms. I shall investigate Jorge's suggestion too, though,
since that ensures that the perms are enforced and refreshed on an
hourly basis. [I shall also test the admincount change mechanism just
for completeness :) ]

Thanks again,
neil


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Almeida Pinto,
Jorge de
Sent: 16 November 2005 07:31
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [Slightly OT] Protecting objects not covered by
AdminSDHolder

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/



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/

Reply via email to