Good morning Matthieu - thanks for your questions concerning ACLs on group policy & associated file objects. I have created the case noted below to track our work and responses against this. One of my colleagues will take ownership of the case and contact you tomorrow.
SRX091011600003 [MS-GPSB] Group Policy AD ACL to File ACL Regards, Bill Wesse MCSE, MCTS / Senior Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM 8055 Microsoft Way Charlotte, NC 28273 TEL: +1(980) 776-8200 CELL: +1(704) 661-5438 FAX: +1(704) 665-9606 -----Original Message----- From: Matthieu Patou [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:28 AM To: Interoperability Documentation Help; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Group Policy questions Hello, We are facing some problems with group policies and I would like to have more information on the following points. Currently Samba is not able to set correctly acl on policy folders so that they are "synchronized" with the acl for the policy object in the AD. So every time a policy is selected in gpmc.msc we receive the message indicating that the ACL are not in sync .... 1) What is the algorithm to transform the AD ACL for Group Policy Object into the ACL for the associated files in \\realm\sysvol ? Lot of us tried different things without success 2) If I modify the ACL of a the Policy directory on a w2k3 DC, I am offered with the to opportunity to correct this when I select the GPO in gpmc. On a S4 server it's not the case but I the ACL for the policy object are the SAME in S4 and in w2k3 and I am testing with the domain administrator (ie. default administrator with rid 500). It seems that the it's not only the SID or the group membership that trigger the right to adjust the ACL. What can influence one or the other behavior ? 3) In the delegation tab of the GPMC tool I am just offered the "advanced" button other are grayed (no possiblity to add or remove a delegation ... I click "advanced" it appear that I can't do much even if the owner of the object is "Domain admins" and that the Administrator is a member of it. It seems that there is also here a subtle logic. Can you explain it ? For your information the SDDL of the acl of a new policy is the following one: O:S-1-5-21-3208502064-746857408-2662927446-512G:S-1-5-21-3208502064-746857408-2662927446-513D:PAI(A;;RPWPCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;S-1-5 -21-3208502064-746857408-2662927446-512)(A;;RPWPCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;S-1-5- 21-3208502064-746857408-2662927446-519)(A;;RPWPCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;S-1-5-2 1-3208502064-746857408-2662927446-512)(A;CIIO;RPWPCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;CO)( A;;RPWPCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;SY)(A;;RPLCLORC;;;AU)(OA;;CR;edacfd8f-ffb3-11d1 -b41d-00a0c968f939;;AU)(A;;RPLCLORC;;;ED)(A;CIID;RPWPCRCCLCLORCWOWDSDSW;;;BA) (A;CIID;RPWPCRCCDCLCLORCWOWDSDDTSW;;;S-1-5-21-3208502064-746857408-2662927446 -519)(A;CIID;LC;;;RU)S:(OU;CIIDSA;WP;f30e3bbe-9ff0-11d1-b603-0000f80367c1;bf9 67aa5-0de6-11d0-a285-00aa003049e2;WD)(OU;CIIDSA;WP;f30e3bbf-9ff0-11d1-b603-00 00f80367c1;bf967aa5-0de6-11d0-a285-00aa003049e2;WD) Regards. Matthieu Patou. _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
