Thanks to all for the clarification and the links. He sounded so convinced that I doubted myself.
Kurt wrote; >>Your nemesis is thinking of older versions of Windows. Bwahaha! Moriarty is foiled again...through the deductive powers of the security focus list... > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >On Behalf Of Kurt Dillard > >Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:39 AM > >To: 'Murda Mcloud'; [email protected] > >Subject: RE: default for requiring authentication 2003 > > > >Murda, > >You are correct, in Windows XP, 2003, and later the Everyone group only > >includes Authenticated Users, it no longer includes Anonymous Users. You > >can > >change this but Microsoft strongly recommends against doing so. Your > >nemesis > >is thinking of older versions of Windows. > > > >Kurt > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >On > >Behalf Of Murda Mcloud > >Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:45 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: default for requiring authentication 2003 > > > > > >I'm having a debate with someone over whether a 2003 server by default > >(OOB)forces someone to authenticate(whether to a DC or to the server > >itself > >if standalone) before allowing access to files. > > > > > > > >He seems to think that the default is that no authentication is required > >and > >consequently anyone could rock up and connect a laptop to a network with > >that server on it and get access to files on it-as the EVERYONE group is > >given read permissions to new folders etc. > > > > > > > >I say he is wrong but am looking hard to find something to back me up. > > > >I understand that the guest account could access files as it is part of > >the > >EVERYONE group but it's disabled by default-but still, there is an > >authentication process for guest to login > > > >
