No, that's a layer 8 issue - operator error. Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
c - 312.731.3132 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 7:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer settings" after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 And when you put ISA on a DC... we prob go into negative layers... ;-) Brian Desmond wrote: > *When I think of a firewall I think of a layer 4 contraption. Layer 7 > is like putting ISA or something on the box.* > > * * > > *Thanks,* > > *Brian Desmond* > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * * > > *c - 312.731.3132* > > * * > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Al Mulnick > *Sent:* Friday, June 09, 2006 9:54 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer settings" > after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 > > > > Interesting. I'm fascinated by the architecture. > > > > FWIW, I was hinting around at layer-7 firewalls being a better choice > than a traditional ACL on a router or a port-forwarding type of > firewall. Firewall technology gives fine control, but it also opens > pandora's box in terms of support, coordination, etc. It also doesn't > do anything for application layer attacks because for that only one > port is needed. The downside is that layer-7 firewalls have a hard > time reaching line speed due to the amount of work and analysis they > do. You almost need a grid cluster to power such a thing. :) > > > > Thanks for the responses. It's helpful to me at least. > > > > Al > > > > On 6/9/06, *Clay, Justin (ITS)* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Sorry for the mega-delay in responding to my own thread, I've been sick! > > > > I don't control our firewalls at all, but my understanding is that > this firewall is there for the exact reasons that Brian described. > It's especially important to us to separate the clients from the > servers and DCs in this case because all of the PCs in this forest are > public-facing (Public Library, Public Parks, etc). I believe we're > either going to go with the method that Brian is using, or they might > possibly use the application-level (I think that's the term they use) > filtering, where, as I understand it, the Checkpoint firewall would > dynamically open the high ports based on information it received by > looking inside the RPC packets and determining which high port the DC > is telling the client to connect on. I think there's a lot more > overhead with this method, but it seems like something our firewall > guys would like to at least try. > > > > As to some of the earlier questions, our firewall guys only opened > such a large range for me so quickly so that the problem would go away > while we researched a more secure solution. It's amazing what they'll > do when they have the director of the Nashville Public Libraries on > the phone yelling at them. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] *On Behalf Of *Brian > Desmond > *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:07 PM > > > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer settings" > after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 > > > > *Yes. It isolates different applications and tiers. One of the big > isolation issues is in house managed vs vendor managed stuff. Database > tier vs app tier vs web tier. Web shouldn't be able to talk to > database at all, generally. Your HR database should not be in a subnet > that a vendor with TS access to another DB server has access to, and > so forth. * > > * * > > *Thanks,* > > *Brian Desmond* > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* > > * * > > *c - 312.731.3132* > > * * > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] *On Behalf Of *Al Mulnick > *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:50 AM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer settings" > after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 > > > > Interesting. So, more or less, the firewall between tiers is more of > a control mechanism? i.e. you can impose fine control over new > applications that should be there, while preventing malicious > applications from running amok on the network at the high port ranges? > Rather, you either use the proposed ports, else take your packets and > go home? > > > > Or am I missing the idea of putting the FW's in between the tiers? > > > > Does this provide you much benefit? What's been the trade-off? > > > > On 6/7/06, *Brian Desmond* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > *I haven't really read this thread thru (too busy) but I think I have > the gist of it. I'll generally throw a firewall between each of my > server tiers (some sort of trunked interface of course) and then of > course between my clients and these tiers. I'm not about to open TCP > 1024-65535 between clients and the servers, might as well just put an > any rule in. Weird stuff that's not belonging on a box has a habit of > running on weird high range ports anyway, this is just conducive to > it. * > > * * > > *I guess I also have the very large enterprise datacenter network > model of subnet for each little item burned in and being meticulous > yet logical about rules. * > > * * > > *Thanks,* > > *Brian Desmond* > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* > > * * > > *c - 312.731.3132* > > * * > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > l.activedir.org <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] *On > Behalf Of *Al Mulnick > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:16 PM > > > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer settings" > after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 > > > > I don't think I'll take that bait this time. :) > > > > Keep in mind that as far as unwanted intrusions are concerned, it only > takes one port - what do you have to gain by reducing the number of > available authorized ports? If you don't watch it everyday, is there > an advantage? Or is it too late if something happens? > > > > As for firewalls, I get the idea of a DC having a firewall - it's the > reason there are firewalls on the DC's with the adoption of R2/K3 sp1. > No problem. But a separate firewall has me interested. > > > > Separating domains with firewalls is silly and trivial to overcome > IMHO. It does however reduce the possible spread of virii/malware/email. > > > > -ajm > > > > > > > > On 6/7/06, *Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]* < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > One advantage of ISA server being on the DC (yes folks I told you we > are insane..but I do have a hardware firewall on the outside) is yeah... > I've got the data watching that crud...I turn into an atheist every > now and then and lose religion I will admit and don't review the daily > firewall report emails always like I should ...but Dana Epp's Scorpion > Software ISA (can be used on other firewalls) dashboard greatly helps > to narrow my investigation when I need it. > > Why MS at 207.46.236.25 <http://207.46.236.25/> is wanting to connect > to my port 46844.. I don't know..but ISA is blocking it > nonetheless.... > > About once a month I throw up the real time monitor and just see what > the gang is doing (yes our AUP states that I can do this).. we now > block myspace.com <http://myspace.com/> as a result..(among other > sites) > > Honestly I don't do it as well as I should... but I try. > > But if you had those blocks in place before... there was a reason... > and that firm has now done a major change management and especially > with firewalls... that's one big change management that you've done > with those domain controllers. > > Isn't domain isolation a good thing? > IT's Showtime: > http://www.microsoft.com/australia/showtime/sessionh.aspx?videoid=115 > > > > Al Mulnick wrote: > > > So... you watch those ports then? You have some sort of watching > > going on for that set of ports? Or are you just relying on the > > concept that, "hey, nothing should be talking to that set of ports, > > hence I shouldn't see anything in my firewall logs (which I'm > > reviewing religiously by the way) therefore this must be something > > amiss and or awry"? Detection of issues (with a lag time built in) vs. > > prevention? > > > > In the case of the original poster, the firewall is a separately > > controlled device that I believe is walling off one network of users > > from a network of servers. In this case, Active Directory servers. > > I'm just not sure why and I'm insanely curious. :) > > > > Al > > > > > > On 6/7/06, *Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]* > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote: > > > > Egress filtering so that there's less ports for me to keep an eye > > on... > > those high level ports can be used for backdoors, trojans and what > > not... I live in California.. I have SSNs in an encrypted > > database... I > > have sucky vendors that won't support encryption... so I'm > putting all > > the layers I can. > > > > I don't trust my secretary that 'has' downloaded malware on her > > machine > > (she's nonadmin these days along with many others in my firm). > > > > I have a tiny network in comparison to you guys (Joe would get > > claustrophobic just opening up the group policy snap in and seeing > > hardly anything in there) but each workstation has XP sp2 with the > > firewalls enabled..and believe you me... if some high level port is > > needed, I need, I want to know what the 'normal' baseline traffic > > is on > > my network.. should something change... that's a sign of a new > > piece of > > software.. or worse yet... malware, trojans, yadda yadda... and I'm > > having a heart attack and licking stamps on post cards informing > > clients > > of an intrusion. > > > > These days your interior "trusted network" can't be trusted > anymore. > > The bad guys want my desktops.. and most of my risks in my sized > > network > > is coming in from those users.. not my server. > > > > > > Al Mulnick wrote: > > > > > Hmm.. I'm surprised by that Susan. :) > > > > > > Anyhow, why would you lock it down? I'm curious as to what the > > > motivation is in this particular instance to use the firewall > like > > > that? What's the gain? What risk are you mitigating? What are > you > > > controlling? > > > > > > As I understand this, it is not an internet facing machine such > > that a > > > firewall is there to slow the rush. This is firewalled off from > > other > > > networks within the "trusted" networks (or not so trusted I > suppose, > > > since you did deploy a firewall.) I'm not sure I understand > > what's to > > > be gained by doing this, so I'm curious. I'm familiar with what > > other > > > companies have done this type of configuration for, but I'm > > interested > > > in this particular instance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/7/06, *Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]* > > > < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> wrote: > > > > > > I think I'd be setting up a sniffer and figuring out exactly > > what > > > is wanting what open and why. > > > > > > ...that's an awful lot of ports....and exactly where is this > > firewall? > > > > > > I'm with Brian.. except I would probably not use the f > > word.. but > > > I think I'd be going "okay this is fine to keep the bosses > from > > > freaking out but we're getting to the bottom of this so I can > > > close those suckers back up or at least only open the > minimums". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian Desmond wrote: > > > > > >> *And fwiw you have some forgiving firewall people. I would > > have > > >> told you to f off and lock it down.* > > >> > > >> * * > > >> > > >> *Thanks,* > > >> > > >> *Brian Desmond* > > >> > > >> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>* > > >> > > >> * * > > >> > > >> *c - 312.731.3132* > > >> > > >> * * > > >> > > >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > > >> [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>] *On Behalf Of *Clay, > > >> Justin (ITS) > > >> *Sent:* Friday, June 02, 2006 4:30 PM > > >> *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > >> <mailto: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > >> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer > > >> settings" after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Well everyone, it's fixed. It's something that even MS is > a bit > > >> surprised at, although they say they have seen it before. > > >> Essentially, the last year since this forest has been > deployed, > > >> high ports (1024-65535) have been blocked at the firewall > > but for > > >> whatever reason, everything seemed to work fine. Installing > > SP1 > > >> apparently changed something, or fixed something that > finally > > >> made it a requirement to have those high ports open. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> They opened 1024-65535 on our Checkpoint firewall and the > > login > > >> times instantly went from 4-8 minutes back down to the > > usual few > > >> seconds. It sucks to have to learn about things like this by > > >> killing a production environment for 4 hours and burning > some > > >> Premiere Support hours, but at least we know what to look > for > > >> when we upgrade some of our other domains to SP1! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions and help, it's > > always > > >> appreciated! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Also, to everyone else that was experiencing this issue, > I'd be > > >> interested to know if a firewall or router ACL blocking high > > >> ports is the cause of the problem for you! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > >> > > >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > > >> [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>] *On Behalf Of *Clay, > > >> Justin (ITS) > > >> *Sent:* Friday, June 02, 2006 2:31 PM > > >> *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > >> <mailto: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > >> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer > > >> settings" after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Nope, I can get to them from the client PCs just fine…I was > > able > > >> to drill down into all of the policies that I tried. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > >> > > >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > > >> [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>] *On Behalf Of *Al > Mulnick > > >> *Sent:* Friday, June 02, 2006 1:34 PM > > >> *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > >> <mailto: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > >> *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer > > >> settings" after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Any problems accessing > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> \\domain\sysvol\domain\Policies > <file:///%5C%5Cdomain%5Csysvol%5Cdomain%5CPolicies> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 6/2/06, *Clay, Justin (ITS)* < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > >> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hopefully the attachment comes through. The interesting > > part, and > > >> where most of the time delay is seen is here: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:36:47:528 ProcessGPOs: Machine role > is 2. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0 ) 12:37:50:606 MyGetUserName: GetUserNameEx > > >> failed with 1753. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:37:50:606 MyGetUserName: Retrying > call to > > >> GetUserNameEx in 1/2 second. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:38:54:371 MyGetUserName: GetUserNameEx > > >> failed with 1753. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:38:54:371 MyGetUserName: Retrying > call to > > >> GetUserNameEx in 1/2 second. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:39:58:027 MyGetUserName: GetUserNameEx > > >> failed with 1753. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:39:58:027 MyGetUserName: Retrying > call to > > >> GetUserNameEx in 1/2 second. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:41:01:573 MyGetUserName: GetUserNameEx > > >> failed with 1753. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:41:01:573 ProcessGPOs: MyGetUserName > failed > > >> with 1753. > > >> > > >> USERENV( 42c.2f0) 12:41:01:573 ProcessGPOs: No WMI logging > > done in > > >> this policy cycle. > > >> > > >> USERENV(42c.2f0) 12:41:01:573 ProcessGPOs: Processing > > failed with > > >> error 1753. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > >> > > >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > > >> [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>] *On Behalf Of *Al > > >> Mulnick > > >> *Sent:* Friday, June 02, 2006 12:19 PM > > >> *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > >> <mailto: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > >> *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] PCs hang at "Applying computer > > >> settings" after upgradingDCs to 2K3 SP1 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I think a different thread mentioned that DNS was about > 90% of > > >> the cause of this type of behavior. It's not the only one > > however. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> What keeps rebooting? The DC? Or the workstations? If the > > >> workstations, not only ethereal but Darren's suggestion of > > >> logging is a good idea. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 6/2/06, *Za Vue* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Finally..someone is also experiencing this problem. My > DCs are > > >> Windows 2003 SP1 also. It seems to hang every 3-4 > reboots. My > > >> first thought was DNS DNS.. but NetDiag, Repl, DCDiag, > > Nslookup > > >> all show no error. Nothing is reported in logs. It is not > > >> firewall. I have play with NetBIOS, changing Provider > Order in > > >> Network Neighborhood->Advanced Settings..nada. > > >> > > >> This week has been quiet. If someone calls again I have > > ethereal > > >> setup and ready to capture. The thing about my > environment is I > > >> do not manage the switches or router. I don't know if > > someone is > > >> messing with something. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> - Z.V. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> , Justin (ITS) wrote: > > >> > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Last night we upgraded our 3 Win2K3 domain controllers to > SP1. > > >> This morning, we're getting tons and tons of calls from > > users who > > >> report that their computer sits at "Applying computer > > settings" > > >> for a good 10 minutes, then another 10 or so minutes at > > "Applying > > >> your personalized settings" > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> After the upgrade we did start seeing DCOM errors in the > > System > > >> event log, which I've found many people online have > > experienced. > > >> I "fixed it" (or at least the DCOM errors went away) by > > granting > > >> Network Service the following rights: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Local Launch > > >> > > >> Remote Launch > > >> > > >> Local Activation > > >> > > >> Remote Activation > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In the Launch and Activation Permissions dialog on the > Security > > >> tab of the netman component. However, even after the DCOM > > errors > > >> have gone away, we continue to see the same results on the > > clients. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Any ideas? I'm considering calling Premier Support, but I > > figured > > >> you guys would be better help than them. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> /Justin Clay/ > > >> /ITS Enterprise Services/ > > >> /Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County / > > >> /Howard School Building/ > > >> /Phone: (615) 880-2573/ > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ITS ENTERPRISE SERVICES EMAIL NOTICE > > >> > > >> The information contained in this email and any > attachments is > > >> confidential and may be subject to copyright or other > > >> intellectual property protection. If you are not the > intended > > >> recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this > > >> information, and we request that you notify us by reply > mail or > > >> telephone and delete the original message from your mail > > system. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ITS ENTERPRISE SERVICES EMAIL NOTICE > > >> > > >> The information contained in this email and any > attachments is > > >> confidential and may be subject to copyright or other > > >> intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended > > >> recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this > > >> information, and we request that you notify us by reply > mail or > > >> telephone and delete the original message from your mail > > system. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ITS ENTERPRISE SERVICES EMAIL NOTICE > > >> > > >> The information contained in this email and any > attachments is > > >> confidential and may be subject to copyright or other > > >> intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended > > >> recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this > > >> information, and we request that you notify us by reply > > mail or > > >> telephone and delete the original message from your mail > > system. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ITS ENTERPRISE SERVICES EMAIL NOTICE > > >> > > >> The information contained in this email and any > attachments is > > >> confidential and may be subject to copyright or other > > >> intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended > > >> recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this > > >> information, and we request that you notify us by reply > mail or > > >> telephone and delete the original message from your mail > > system. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > > http://www.threatcode.com <http://www.threatcode.com/> > > The SBS product team wants to hear from you: > > http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2006/05/18/95865.aspx > > < http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2006/05/18/95865.aspx> > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > <http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx> > > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > > > > > -- > Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > http://www.threatcode.com <http://www.threatcode.com/> The SBS product > team wants to hear from you: > http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2006/05/18/95865.aspx > <http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2006/05/18/95865.aspx> > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > <http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx> > > > > > > > > ITS ENTERPRISE SERVICES EMAIL NOTICE > > The information contained in this email and any attachments is > confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual > property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request > that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original > message from your mail system. > > > -- Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? http://www.threatcode.com The SBS product team wants to hear from you: http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2006/05/18/95865.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
