Re: Restricted User Group
From: Steven L Umbach (n9rou_at_nospam-comcast.net)
Date: 11/06/05
- Previous message: Will: "Re: Restricted User Group"
- In reply to: Will: "Re: Restricted User Group"
- Next in thread: Will: "Re: Restricted User Group"
- Reply: Will: "Re: Restricted User Group"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 00:33:27 -0600
When you use runas the restricted identity is added to your security token.
Restricted identity has limited permissions in access control lists and
apparently it is there to insure that the user using runas has those needed
permissions in case you do not as the account you are logged on with. System
permissions do not apply to a user even if the user is using runas. From
what I can tell if I use runas and specify an administrator account the
operating system will let me run that particular application as an
administrator but it does not change my security token to reflect membership
in the administrators group in order to protect the operating system from
using administrator powers beyond running that specific application.
Personally I don't see or have not heard or read of any risk in leaving
restricted in the ACLs configured by default and would leave it alone so as
to not interfere with someone using runas. If you do not want to use runas
for some reason the disable the secondary logon service. Certainly you
should remove users/authenticates users/everyone from any ACL's where the
result will be in users having excessive permissions in the spirit of
principle of least privilege. Authenticated users has the advantage in that
it's membership can not be managed and will never contain anonymous or
guests. It is possible for the guest account to be added to the users group
and that could be disastrous if the guest account was enabled. NSA security
guides recommend using authenticated users when you want to grant access to
the general population. --- Steve
"Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote in message
news:usNuwGp4FHA.700@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the definition of Restricted in the ACL lists. I'm finding
> this
> entity in many of the registry ACLs. If SYSTEM is already in the ACL,
> why
> would I also want to grant privileges to Restricted? If I am using Run
> As
> on a binary, won't the binary run in the security context of a specific
> user
> account, and wouldn't it be better to just have the ACLs refer to specific
> user groups rather than some generic entity? I generally remove all
> references to "Authenticated Users" in my ACLs since that and Everyone
> grant
> far too permissive access to resources. I find that running with Users
> if
> you want to have domain users access resources locally is usually
> sufficient.
>
> In the case of Restricted, wouldn't it be enough to grant Administrators
> and
> SYSTEM access to all of the ACLs and just avoid Restricted?
>
> --
> Will
>
>
> "Steven L Umbach" <n9rou@nospam-comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:uKESv5o4FHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Restricted An identity used by a process that is executed in a
>> restricted security context. When you launch a program in Windows XP
>> Professional with the graphical RunAs utility, selecting "Protect my
>> computer and data from unauthorized program activity runs the program
>> with
> a
>> restricted token that contains the S-5-12 SID.
>
>
- Previous message: Will: "Re: Restricted User Group"
- In reply to: Will: "Re: Restricted User Group"
- Next in thread: Will: "Re: Restricted User Group"
- Reply: Will: "Re: Restricted User Group"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|