I love when I hear that "the Internet is down" 8)

From: David Lum [mailto:david....@nwea.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: UAC--argh...

LOL - yeah "what kind of login do you mean?" It keeps us busy, to be sure. Few 
things are more ambiguous than "my computer doesn't work" though...

Just over an hour until SHOOKIE PRESENTATION time!

Dave

From: Miller Bonnie L. [mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: UAC--argh...

Exactly-that is what we do and what I'm talking about, so I think we are doing 
the same things.  RDP to the server and use an admin account when logging on at 
that point.  Normal user logon when on workstations.

I'm sorry if that was confusing-I probably should have clarified "logon to 
servers" as using RDP or at the console.  I'm guessing you thought I meant for 
something like a shared folder connection from a workstation.  There are so 
many different types of logons!

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:23 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: UAC--argh...

I use server admin console with the remote desktop snap-in from my workstation 
to connect and enter the domain admin credentials at that point, or I use the 
run-as whenever necessary.  I never use my normal user account to log onto a 
server and rarely ever actually physically log into a servers console.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Miller Bonnie L. 
<mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu<mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:

We also each have two accounts and separatation for Domain admins and schema 
admins-I think the difference here is that we use the user one on workstations 
and the admin one on servers.  You're saying you log onto both as your user and 
then elevate where needed, right?



From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com<mailto:saber...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:21 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: UAC--argh...



I have two user accounts.  One is my regular account that is associated with my 
Exchange mailbox that only allows me access to my dept. share etc. it's a 
limited access, typical user account.  The other is a domain admin that I use 
when I need to access (remote desktop, run as etc) something that requires 
admin level privileges.  It's very intentional to make us "think" about what we 
are doing, allows for logging to be traced back to a specific admin in the 
event that something needs to be looked at (rather than using a "generic" 
domain admin account for all the domains admins in my group.)   We keep a 
separate enterprise domain admin account, and a schema admin account that stays 
disabled until it is needed to make schema changes.

We give our DBA's a specific DBA account that is only a local admin on database 
servers, and we lock that account down to only being able to log on the 
database servers so they can't log onto the Exchange server and muck things up, 
and that DBA account is not a domain admin.

Once you put something like this in place and enforce it, it's really not 
difficult or hard to do, and doesn't impede productivity (no matter what they 
might try to say to you about it, it doesn't impede productivity!)

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Miller Bonnie L. 
<mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu<mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:

I realize that best practice will almost always dictate the most secure, but 
I'm talking about just the people that just need it here.  I guess that's what 
I mean-regular users don't have any sort of access to even do a server logon, 
except for a few TS servers where permission are limited down.  There are only 
a few people that do any sort of server management, and I'm talking about 
actual management stuff, like installing OS updates, firmware, software, etc, 
which requires higher privs.  Or do you really log on as a user and then do a 
runas for pretty much everything?  I'm mixing OSes here now, with mostly WS03 
as opposed to the newer WS08 servers that we have.



There are a few logons I would consider in a gray area where we could do it 
better, like a DBA that logs on as an admin on the server.  But, when we tried 
to limit things down, it was tough enough to get it to the desktops.  Even our 
admins get upset about having to elevate permissions to do things like connect 
to a share with another user name, etc.



From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com<mailto:saber...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: UAC--argh...



Ewwww, that has been a no-no for best security practices for years.  I'm sure 
if you dig around long enough you could come up with documentation from MS to 
support that.  I may have some references for you, but I'll have to dig around 
for them ;)

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:09 AM, David Lum 
<david....@nwea.org<mailto:david....@nwea.org>> wrote:

I'm the wrong dude to ask, our admins here are domain admins on their 
day-to-day accounts (I am the only one who doesn't do that, but I have had no 
luck convincing anyone else to follow suit).  I do log into some of my servers 
(DC's) with my domain admin account, other servers I use my daily use account.



Dave



From: Miller Bonnie L. 
[mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu<mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:05 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: UAC--argh...



Dave-do your people who log onto servers log on with limited accounts there as 
well?  If so, how many people are we talking about?  We are a pretty small 
group and we have limited accounts for workstation/daily activities usage, but 
when connecting to a server, an admin account is generally used.



From: David Lum [mailto:david....@nwea.org<mailto:david....@nwea.org>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: UAC--argh...



I think the only time an admin account would be used would be specifically to 
install software - I'm thinking kind of like changing a Citrix server to 
install mode where you only invoke that mode to install stuff. And hopefully 
the thumb drive gets scanned before a file is opened or moved from it.



Put another way, you don't use the machine logged in as a local admin, you use 
it as a regular user and make UAC ask for admin credentials to install 
something.

David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764







From: Miller Bonnie L. 
[mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu<mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: UAC--argh...



LOL-that happens a LOT in the school applications world with permissions in 
general-"it needs to be administrator".



So question on disabling AAM-Wouldn't that defeat the "malware protection" 
component of UAC, assuming an admin account was somehow used run the malware 
without that admin user's knowledge?  I'm going with logging onto a server as 
an admin.  For example, admin user logs onto a server and sticks a thumb drive 
in to copy a file over.  Somehow there is malware that got on the thumbdrive.  
Assuming nothing else catches it (AV, etc), would disabling AAM allow it to run 
without consent?





From: David Lum [mailto:david....@nwea.org<mailto:david....@nwea.org>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:21 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: UAC--argh...



+1 on keeping UAC on. Disabling AAM is sufficient to remove the annoyances, UAC 
has real benefits.



My opinion concurs with Ben's. Just last week I was working with a vendor who 
claimed their application required Vista's User Access Control (UAC) needed to 
be turned off for the application to work. This was a VENDOR telling me about 
their product! Yet amazingly I figured out how to make it work with 
UAC....needless to say, they have since updated their documentation.



Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: UAC--argh...



On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Miller Bonnie

L.<mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu<mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:

> So, I've been trying REALLY hard to just get used to UAC with WS08 ...



  The following is my opinion and analysis.  It differs significantly

from the Microsoft party line.



  Disable admin approval mode (AAM) for all administrators.    Keep UAC enabled.



  AAM is just a lot of smoke and mirrors.  The right way to do things

is to run as a "limited user" except when needed, and have a separate

admin account for admin stuff.  If you do that, you don't need AAM.

Indeed, AAM makes things *worse*, because admins get so used to

clicking dozens of prompts that they'll miss important prompts.



  However, Microsoft created a culture that expects to have admin

rights.  That includes many users, many programmers, many end-user

customers, many of Microsoft's customers, and many ISVs.  Simply

saying "don't run as admin" wasn't working.  I don't think it's likely

that changing OOBE (out-of-box experience) to create separate accounts

would help, either.  People (or software) would just use the admin

account for everything.



  So AAM was created.  AAM is basically an attempt at letting a user

have admin rights but not actually running with admin rights.  The end

result may or may not do anything to help lusers who insist on having

admin rights all the time, but it just gets in the way of IT

professionals who have been using separate admin accounts for years.



  I recommend keeping UAC enabled because it does have other benefits.

Filesystem and registry virtualization needs UAC to work, and FS&R

virtualization is (in my experience) the *only* actual improvement in

Vista.  UAC also lets Windows prompt for alternate credentials when an

unprivileged user attempts a privileged operation.  Thus an admin can

provide privileged credentials when needed, without a full-blown

separate logon.



  The above is my opinion and analysis.  It differs significantly from

the Microsoft party line.



-- Ben



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~

~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~





























--
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke











--
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke











--
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke













~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Reply via email to