Everyone, Users, and Guests
From: e-head (ehead_at_nobodies.biz)
Date: 06/19/03
- Next message: Jeff Cochran: "Re: I didnt practice safe FTP hosting"
- Previous message: Tim Cheney: "Limiting network access of Terminal Services clients"
- Next in thread: Ricardo M. Urbano - W2K/NT4 MVP: "Re: Everyone, Users, and Guests"
- Reply: Ricardo M. Urbano - W2K/NT4 MVP: "Re: Everyone, Users, and Guests"
- Reply: Salt_Peter: "Re: Everyone, Users, and Guests"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:00:40 GMT
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has found these three groups confusing.
Is the Everyone group only supposed to include authenticated users ? That
is, authenticated either on the local machine, or on a domain
via a domain controller. Anyone who "signs on" to any workgroup or domain in
this regard would be considered Everyone ?
And the only one's that would not be a part of this group are, say, 98 users
who hit cancel instead of signing on the workgroup/domain.
Guests are literally anyone, right ? Even if the person was not
authenticated on a domain or workgroup. So, e.g. , if you wanted to run an
anonymous ftp server and give read/write permission to everyone who came
along, you would grant this permission to Guests ?
If anyone could highlight the fine points between all these groups I would
appreciate it.
Also, Everyone seems hidden in XP. He is there, I can type him in and add
him, but he doesnt show up in the users and groups mmc.
- Next message: Jeff Cochran: "Re: I didnt practice safe FTP hosting"
- Previous message: Tim Cheney: "Limiting network access of Terminal Services clients"
- Next in thread: Ricardo M. Urbano - W2K/NT4 MVP: "Re: Everyone, Users, and Guests"
- Reply: Ricardo M. Urbano - W2K/NT4 MVP: "Re: Everyone, Users, and Guests"
- Reply: Salt_Peter: "Re: Everyone, Users, and Guests"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]