Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?
From: S. Pidgorny
Date: 12/11/03
- Next message: EvB: "Re: all operations require local admin rights"
- Previous message: S. Pidgorny
: "Re: SID" - In reply to: sP: "Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:45:31 +1100
Definitely domain GPOs. Integration is better for management and isn't
compromising security, as securing domain - and maintaining security - will
be easier for one entity than for 25.
-- Svyatoslav Pidgorny, MVP, MCSE -= F1 is the key =- "sP" <littlechild_zu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:023f01c3be76$413b0070$a101280a@phx.gbl... > I'm looking for a best practice. > > I have about 25 windows 2000 servers that I have been told > to secure. They range from domain controllers, file/print, > citrix, sqlservers and domino. > > What is the best practice to control group policy settings > on these servers? Should I leave them off the domain and > set them through local GP? Or is it better to add these > servers to the domain and control group policy through > Active Directory. > > The "do it the easy way" part of me says to add them to > the domain and control the servers through active > directory. This would allow me to secure and update the > servers much more easily. > > However, the "keep it secure as possible" part of me says > to keep servers off the domain that don't need to be. This > would be a bit more work but makes since. > > Can anyone give any thoughts on this matter? Is my > thinking wrong?
- Next message: EvB: "Re: all operations require local admin rights"
- Previous message: S. Pidgorny
: "Re: SID" - In reply to: sP: "Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|