"Everyone group"

From: sgopus (fredd@hotmail.com)
Date: 02/24/03 

From: "sgopus" <fredd@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:41:55 -0800

Chill my man, the everyone group is necessary.
However a better definition of FULL permissions is in
order. it already sounds as if this person is not familiar
with groups/permissions.

If you have checked that all users must enter a password
to use this computer, (W2K) then everyone is still needed
for group control and policies.

>-----Original Message-----
>First of all : Never, for the love of God, ever leave
>every one in a security or sharing with full access. This
>only tells Win2k that anybody, who is either on your
>network or the net, has access to the computer/folder
>shared.
>
>2nd, to remedy this situation, remove Everyone from the
>security window, then add DomainUsers and DomainAdmins;
>doing so will only let those 2 groups to access the
>network ressources, and prevent people from freely coming
>in.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Hello,
>>
>>Is it necessary to leave the Everyone group with full
>>permissions? What exactly is this group's function, and
>>can it be removed entirely?
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>Shelton
>>.
>>
>.
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: security problem
    ... the mapping i ment that when i see on the security window the permissions of ... the users group the user mapping is set for true and under that i set also ... What security window? ... Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.security)
  • Re: "Everyone group"
    ... I think a little clarification is in order between these two posts. ... Share permissions don't really mean squat on an NTFS volume. ... ALWAYS use ntfs permissions to control access, ... then add DomainUsers and DomainAdmins; ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.security)