Re: Disable posix and os2 subsystems

From: Steven L Umbach (n9rou_at_nospam-comcast.net)
Date: 09/20/05

  • Next message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: encrypted windows 2000 folder problem." 
    Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:26:45 -0500

    According to MS documentation [example below] you need to clear the values
    under optional.

    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/prork/pric_run_caom.asp

    For Windows 2003 Servers you can use the security option for system
    settings: optional subsystems and define it with no subsystems listed. Local
    Security Policy can be opened via secpol.msc and security policy can also be
    managed on a group of computers in a domain via Group Policy. --- Steve

    "TimW123" <TimW123@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:312471F6-9CAF-48FA-BEF1-1B0FEEEB11F2@microsoft.com...
    > What is the simplest most effective way to disable the os2 & posix
    > subsystems
    > on windows 2000 & 2003 servers?
    >
    > Is clearing
    > HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Subsystems\optional
    > value sufficient or do you have to also delete
    > HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Subsystems\os2 &
    > posix
    > values and delete
    > HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session
    > Manager\Environment\Os2LibPath?
    >
    > Thanks
    > Tim
    >

  • Next message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: encrypted windows 2000 folder problem."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: unable to change local user rights assignment policy
      ... of blocked accounts, but on at least two of them, the option to change the list is greyed out. ... I checked the domain security policy and the domain controller security policy, and my account is not shown in them, which was the most common solution I found on line. ... Greyed out options in Security Settings indicate that there is a domain Group Policy that defines that setting. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.group_policy)
    • Re: status of Programming by Contract (PEP 316)?
      ... of security of a 'System' is the same as the level of security of it's ... are statistically independent (no common-mode failures, ... subsystems "in series" with independent failures can ... produce a system that's weaker than its weakest component. ...
      (comp.lang.python)
    • Re: DMZ NT4 TO Internal 2000 AD One-Way Trust via Firewall
      ... leverage an effectivity security policy to ensure that password complexities ... > currently a mess of local and domain users, no security policy, etc. ... DMZ, not publicly accessible) that aren't going away within the stated ... to non-DC web servers in the DMZ on 80 and 443 - none of which are directed ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
    • RE: [fw-wiz] PIX vs Checkpoint vs Sonicwall vs Netscreen - comme nts?
      ... > Checkpoint propaganda stuff. ... > spent most of my security consulting career trying to stomp out bloated ... >>All NetScreen appliances rely on custom-designed ASICs (Application ... >>Specific Integrated Circuits) for security policy enforcement. ...
      (Firewall-Wizards)
    • Re: Bit of advice on current AD structure.
      ... If you can do everything you need to do from a GPO and security standpoint there is no reason to move to something more complex. ... So you need to figure out what your security and group policy strategy is, then make your design. ... I am really disliking native delegation of security for user objects more and more as new apps come out and having rights to the users gives you rights to harm the apps, things like Exchange come to mind here where an admin who can directly manipulate user objects can cause nightmares for folks managing the Exchange Service. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)