About confidential attributes in SP1:

When you set an attribute to be confidential, mere read permission is no longer 
enough for you to see the attribute value.

HOW TO ENABLE

- Select the attribute to be set as confidential. Category 1 attributes are not 
possible to select, which rules most of the base schema attributes out but not 
all... Cat1 is marked in the corresponding attributeSchema object in its 
systemFlags attribute, as bit 0xF (or 16 in decimal).

- Locate the corresponding attributeSchema object in the schema, and set bit 
0x80 (or 128 in decimal) in its searchFlags attribute.

HOW TO DELEGATE

- Grant "All Extended Rights" for anyone, who needs to see the confidential 
attribute and grant this on the object, where the attribute is (or you could 
also use inheritance, of course). For example, grant "All Extended Rights" on 
the Sales OU, where are the user Jill and contact Carl.

- SP1 ACL Editor hides "All Extended Rights" on object classes that don't have 
any extended rights associated, such as contact. In that case you would use 
DSACLS, such as the command "dsacls cn=jill,ou=demo,dc=sanao,dc=com /G jim:ca"

PROS

- If you delegate "Read All Properties" to someone, you can exclude some 
attributes from this "All" by marking them as confidential. This also applies 
when people have "Read All Properties" through the "Pre-Windows 2000 compatible 
access" group.

CONS

- As you need to grant "All Extended Rights", the trustee who got the 
permissions, gets not just permission to see a confidential attribute, but she 
also gets all current and future extended rights on the target object. For 
example, if you want Jim to see the users' social security numbers, he will 
also get permission to reset their passwords. And if one year later a 
directory-enabled application adds its own extended right to your AD, Jim will 
have that new permission right away on the affected users.

- Account Operators have Full Control over user objects, so they also have "All 
Extended Rights", so they are able to read users's confidential attributes.

If this feature were implemented as a new access mask bit, it would have 
removed the first described drawback.

Yours, Sakari


===============================

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 4:31 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it 
was this DL......
        
Excellent thanks ~Eric... This looks to be a good document.
         
However, anyone else think this info on confidential attributes is a bit weak 
in the documentation
         
Improved security to protect confidential attributes

To prevent Read access to confidential attributes, such as a Social Security 
number, while allowing Read access to other object attributes, you can 
designate specific attributes as confidential by setting a search flag on the 
respective attributeSchema object. By default, only domain administrators have 
Read access to confidential attributes, but this access can be delegated. For 
more information about access to attributes, see "How Security Descriptors and 
Access Control Lists Work" on the Microsoft Web site 
<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=45972>  at 
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=45972. 

The link takes you to a document from March 28, 2003 which I highly doubt has 
more info about confidential attributes. This is something that actually 
requires you to make changes to use, not like saying hey we also keep SID 
Histories in the tombstone objects now which doesn't take any action on the 
part of the admins....
         

________________________________

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 12:22 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was 
this DL......

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=C3C26254-8CE3-46E2-B1B6-3659B92B2CDE&displaylang=en

I didn't read it for completeness, but spot checked, and many are there. Though 
certainly not every one I'm sure.

        ~Eric
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

Reply via email to