Re: Default Permissions
From: Steve Riley [MSFT] (steriley_at_microsoft.com)
Date: 12/23/04
- Next message: Steve Riley [MSFT]: "Re: IPsec - restrict communcation"
- Previous message: Tim Holman \(MVP - Security\): "Re: Is this a Security Issue?"
- In reply to: Jarno: "Default Permissions"
- Next in thread: Roger Abell [MVP]: "Re: Default Permissions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:35:15 -0800
The default permissions on Windows Server 2003 are much tighter than they
were on Windows 2000. Further tinkering usually isn't necessary and can have
adverse side effects. Please consult the Windows Server 2003 Security Guide
for good guidance on the things that you can do to further enhance the security
of your computers by grouping them into "roles" and automatically applying
(through group policy) consistent security settings that are appropriate
for machines based on what the machines are doing.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/prodtech/win2003/w2003hg/sgch00.mspx
Steve Riley
steriley@microsoft.com
> Hi!
>
> Can someone explain why the default permissions in every harddrives
> and partitions in Windows 2003 Server look like they do? For example
> if you look at advanced settings on security the "Users" group will
> appear with three different settings. And what is the reason to put
> the "System" group there. We feel like we want to remove all the
> default security and only leave the Administrators as default with
> full control and then add the permission we need in the subfolders.
>
- Next message: Steve Riley [MSFT]: "Re: IPsec - restrict communcation"
- Previous message: Tim Holman \(MVP - Security\): "Re: Is this a Security Issue?"
- In reply to: Jarno: "Default Permissions"
- Next in thread: Roger Abell [MVP]: "Re: Default Permissions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
