+1 to no shared accounts at the admin level.





*ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker>
*Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for
the SMB market…*

* GPG: *1AF3 EEC3 7C3C E88E B0EF 4319 8F28 A483 A182 EF3A


On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote:

> One person, multiple accounts, no shared accounts.
>
> And it's damned unlikely that he'd need EA for any task, unless he's
> extending the schema, which happens only very rarely. He's going to
> have to justify that he needs it for the task.
>
> I can see having the DA account also be an EA, if only because in so
> many configurations it's just a matter of the DA adding the
> membership, but not vice versa.
>
> Kurt
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I’ve been approached recently to put one of my admins into the Enterprise
> > Admins group, because he used to have it, and thought he needed it for a
> > specific task.  We recently cleaned up this group, and I’m hesitant to
> > re-add another admin, especially on the basis of “I used to have it”.  We
> > currently are down to 3 users in the group, myself and two others.  The
> > accounts used are our admin accounts, which are Domain Admins in
> addition to
> > Enterprise Admins.  What I was wondering is this:
> >
> >
> >
> > Should we actually be using unique accounts just for the Enterprise Admin
> > role, or is the way we have it ok?  Should we instead have a service
> account
> > placeholder in the Enterprise Admin group, and use that to either do
> > whatever work needs done, or to add ourselves as needed?  I’d love to
> hear
> > what everyone out there is doing.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe Heaton
> >
> > Information Technology Operations Branch
> >
> > Data and Technology Division
> >
> > CA Department of Fish and Wildlife
> >
> > 1700 9th Street, 3rd Floor
> >
> > Sacramento, CA  95811
> >
> > Desk:  (916) 323-1284
> >
> >
> >
> > Every Californian should conserve water.
>
>
>

Reply via email to