Does it actually say it must be run from that account or is it a possible lack of some sort of access that he isn't aware of?
I have seen apps that have locked into a specific profile which is also bad. Whatever was used for the initial install had to be used for any updates because critical info was stored in the profile of the ID that did the install. joe -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] SBSland folks ask Big server land people a question about the use and risk of the "500" account. :-) Don't install the 5th part of the SBS sp1 service pack bundle then..... 'cause it kinda wants to be only run under that "500" account. I've got a SBSer installing WSUS under an alternative Admin account and the installs that he's done under the "500" account the computers check in just fine...the ones under the alternative account are having issues. He's applied the compression hotfix and done client side targeting and still no go. He's redoing the group policy settings under the "500" account now. Al Mulnick wrote: > I can honestly think of no plausible reason that any vendor I want to > do business with would require that I use that or any specific > account. There is never a time when that's acceptable. Wait. I want > to be clear about this. There is never a time when it is acceptable to > tell me that I MUST install and run under a specific named account. > > Any time I've been faced with that concept, I and my colleagues have > always pushed back on the vendor to specify exactly what rights and > any other pertinent details were needed. If they couldn't or > otherwise wouldn't provide the details, then we emphatically recommend > no sale. If that doesn't prevent the sale, we loop in the security > folks to accept responsibility for the compliance and other security > issues that this may introduce. If they were fine with it, then I no > longer have a stake in the game for that. Instead, I no have a scape > goat for anything to goes wrong ;) > > There is never a time when it is acceptable to tell me that I MUST > install and run under a specific named account. Never. > > > On 1/28/06, *Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]* > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > There have been times in recent past that certain installs or > applications only work under the "500" account aka the real admin > account down here in SBSland. > > In Big server land... do you also find this to be true with apps that > need to be installed on the server? > > For many of you you are obviously remote admin'ing. > > Do you ..when using that 500 account... accept the risk of that Admin > account/password over TS/3389? > > Only over VPN? Only use that 500 account in certain > vlans/subnets/whatevers that obviously we in SBSland never carve > up our > domain structures in? > > For SOX purposes only have a documented use of that 500 account? > > For all other times do you use admin equivalent? > > > -- > Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > http://www.threatcode.com > > 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/ > > -- Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? http://www.threatcode.com 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/
