Re: I think I may have found a security oversight.
From:Date: 10/24/02
- Next message: Pete: "Windows NT 4.0 permissions lost on reboot"
- Previous message: davide@yahoo.com: "Re: Which is more secure XP or W2K Pro?"
- In reply to: Pete Grazaitis: "Re: I think I may have found a security oversight."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:12:31 -0500
In article <20f7835.0210210946.3bae0d10@posting.google.com>,
pjgratz@yahoo.com says...
> I
> think it is a problem with the design. I would think for resources
> associated with a domain part of the authentication should be in
> forcing the use of the domain in the authentication process. I dont
> know if that can be done, and Im sure a bright person can manipulate
> the token to include that. But, the average user who is lazy and
> decides not to log into the domain should not be able to circumvent
> the domains restrictions (ie policies).
>
>
Hello Pete!!!
You're right, that's what NT does, by design. What you need to do to
enforce domain security is set the login for the local machine with a
different id or password or both from the domain login. then they can
use their machines on the road, but they have to use your scripts,
policy if they want to see anything on the network.
Best regards,
Ed
- Next message: Pete: "Windows NT 4.0 permissions lost on reboot"
- Previous message: davide@yahoo.com: "Re: Which is more secure XP or W2K Pro?"
- In reply to: Pete Grazaitis: "Re: I think I may have found a security oversight."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
