ABE won't necessarily reduce the number of groups you need to control access, 
although it certainly controls the visibility for those that don't have any 
rights to specific data in your shares.

Your approach is a very common approach and certainly nothing unusual. Not sure 
how you get from 15 departments to 60 groups (a more concrete sample of your 
group structure would help understand). But whatever it is, a user will likely 
be a member of quite a few groups either directly or through nesting - I 
wouldn't worry too much about the number of groups you create (if they have 
good structure that makes sense), but more about the number of groups a user 
will have to be a member of.

At some point you have to think about the kerb token size the users will get at 
logon and if that is going to cause issues. You can obviously influence this by 
choosing to create some of your groups locally on the FS, but this has it's own 
downsides.

/Guido

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Evans
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: File Server Permissions Design Question

We're actually using ABE (or will be once we start migrating to this box).  It 
helped me a ton with a couple situations (home folders being the big one 
because of something called FERPA, if you don't know what it is you don't ever 
want to know).  However I don't see how that helps me here specifically.


Steve Evans

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Parris
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:38 PM
To: ActiveDir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: File Server Permissions Design Question

Have you looked at installing the Access based Enumeration feature pack and 
basing the permissioning on this type of model?

Assuming W2003.

Regards,




Mark Parris

Base IT Ltd
Active Directory Consultancy
Tel +44(0)7801 690596


-----Original Message-----
From: "Steve Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:57:52
To:<[email protected]>
Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: File Server Permissions Design Question

I've had difficulty finding a better forum in which to ask this.  And since it 
involves AD Security Groups I thought I could get away with it.


We're in the process of migrating to a new file server.  Our shared drive has a 
basic structure of:

Shared\Department\Sub-Department\<one public folder & one private folder>

Our original thought was to have one Read and one Read/Write group for each 
public and private folder.  Those groups would then be populated by role based 
groups (department groups, position groups (ex all management)).  I've

written a script that you can point to a directory structure and it creates the 
appropriate groups and assigns the security permissions.

However I end up creating a lot of groups.  Just in ITS (for example) we have 
15 sub-departments so that will produce 60 groups right there.  On the other 
hand everything is very structured and in theory you can mange file security 
permissions from within AD.  Since everything is scripted you never

need to go and look at folder permissions (except for the file server admin 
guys when troubleshooting).

I'm also concerned that users will end up being in groups that are nested in

a substantial number of groups.  For instance most of the public-read groups 
for ITS will contain the group "ITS - All Staff".  That means any given ITS 
employee will have 30 security group tokens just from this.


Any thoughts or opinions?

Steve Evans

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED])

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

Reply via email to