RE: multiple DNS entries

[Ken Schaefer]

It is a little unclear what you are wanting to do. But if you just want to 
update records in the DNS, then dnscmd.exe can do this for you.

Cheers
Ken


From: Miguel Gonzalez Castaños [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2008 5:47 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: multiple DNS entries

Hi,

   We have server1 and server2 IIS servers. Server2 is going to replace
server1. We keep different entries in the DNS server of our DC for
testing the IIS sites after being migrated in server2 so We have
site1.domain.com pointing to server1 and site1new.domain.com pointing to
server2. This is happening for all the sites that we have in server1. So
currently We have some sites migrated in server2 and some old sites
still in server1. Is there any easy way (a script or command) to move
the entries in the DNS from server2 to server1 (those entries are real
IP addresses) when We finish all the migration? There are entries that
are not pointing to server1 anymore (they were already migrated and are
pointing to server2).

   Thanks,

   Miguel

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Ken Schaefer]

You mean, make Windows Server 2003 more like Windows XP?

Cheers
Ken


From: Roger Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2008 9:52 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

Yep, seems to have begun with SP2.  I guess MS is trying to make W2003
more like Vista.


Roger Wright
Network Administrator
Evatone, Inc.
727.572.7076  x388


Modesty:  Being comfortable that others will discover your greatness.


-Original Message-
From: Christopher Boggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

I thought it was around the time of XP SP2...  I've only been snagged by
it a couple times since - but of course it took while before I figured
out that was the problem, because I didn't even know it existed.


cb
-Original Message-
From: Durf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 2:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

I was surprised by this when doing a fresh install the other day.
When exactly did this feature get introduced, anyone recall?  Is it
2003 R2?

-- Durf

On Jan 4, 2008 2:11 PM, Devin Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In windoze explorer, right click the file, choose "Properties" and
click
> "Unblock".
> hth, Devin
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Ken Schaefer]

I believe it's in the "Changes in XP SP2" document (which I'm just trying to 
find now).

It's also mentioned here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/oeandsp2.mspx

I think this feature kicks in when you download a .exe using a post-SP2 copy of 
IE (or post Windows Server 2003 SP1 copy of IE), or receive it via email in OE. 
There is a flag in the ADS for that file that is checked, which results in the 
blocking. But let me see if I can find the Changes in XP SP2 doc.

Cheers
Ken


From: Angus Scott-Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2008 8:57 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

On 4 Jan 2008 at 15:29, Durf  wrote:

> I was surprised by this when doing a fresh install the other day.
> When exactly did this feature get introduced, anyone recall?  Is it
> 2003 R2?

XP SP2.  Does anyone have an MSKB link or some other documentation on this?

A

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Persistent Mapped Drive

[Benjamin Zachary]

Try subst? 

-Original Message-
From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Persistent Mapped Drive

I need to map a drive to a network share and have it remain even when no
one is logged in.  Checked the " Reconnect at logon" box and maps the
connection again when logging in, however, I need this drive to be
consistent for a web app.



Roger Wright
Network Administrator
Evatone, Inc.
727.572.7076  x388


"Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the
feeling that nothing remains to be said." - Jean Rostand


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Persistent Mapped Drive

[kenw]

Coupla thots:

1.  If your web app runs in the user context, that would entail a lot of
mapping overhead every time a connection launched the app.  Even with
UNCs, much of the overhead remains. 

2.  I recently ran into an issue that made me less happy with UNCs.  If
you need move data to another server, UNC references have to be changed
at the client.  Script-based drive mappings are much simpler to manager.
(Does anyone remember VMS Logical Names?)  I've started using UNCs with
DFS-based shares so I can relocate data invisibly to the client.

/kenw

> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: January-04-08 2:13 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Persistent Mapped Drive
> 
> Thanks... don't particularly care for the drawbacks but will try to
> mitigate with obscurity.
> 
> 
> Roger Wright
> Network Administrator
> Evatone, Inc.
> 727.572.7076  x388
> 
> 
> No trees were harmed in the sending of this message - but billions of
> electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Kelsay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:32 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Persistent Mapped Drive
> 
> Two ways.
> 1. Set a GPO or local policy to select a script during startup as
> opposed to login:
> Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Scripts(Startup/shutdown)
> Drawback, settung the user and password setting in the script 2. Run
> the
> same script from the registry "Run" key. Same drawback.
> 
> 
> I am doing this on a server to map a remote drive for an application
> that cannot use UNC connections and must have a drive letter.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 15:19 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Persistent Mapped Drive
> 
> I need to map a drive to a network share and have it remain even when
> no
> one is logged in.  Checked the " Reconnect at logon" box and maps the
> connection again when logging in, however, I need this drive to be
> consistent for a web app.
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Wright
> Network Administrator
> Evatone, Inc.
> 727.572.7076  x388
> 
> 
> "Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the
> feeling that nothing remains to be said." - Jean Rostand
> 
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Roger Wright]

Yep, seems to have begun with SP2.  I guess MS is trying to make W2003
more like Vista.


Roger Wright
Network Administrator
Evatone, Inc.
727.572.7076  x388


Modesty:  Being comfortable that others will discover your greatness.


-Original Message-
From: Christopher Boggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

I thought it was around the time of XP SP2...  I've only been snagged by
it a couple times since - but of course it took while before I figured
out that was the problem, because I didn't even know it existed.


cb
-Original Message-
From: Durf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 2:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

I was surprised by this when doing a fresh install the other day.
When exactly did this feature get introduced, anyone recall?  Is it
2003 R2?

-- Durf

On Jan 4, 2008 2:11 PM, Devin Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In windoze explorer, right click the file, choose "Properties" and
click
> "Unblock".
> hth, Devin
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 12:55 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > All
> >
> > Does anyone know what program might be blocking the ability to run
or copy
> > "setup.exe" from remote drives yet allow you to copy a bit-for-bit
> identical
> > copy named XXsetupXX.ZIP, rename it (locally) to "setup.exe", and
run it
> > locally?
> >
> > System in question is an XP SP2 box running McAfee VirusScan
Corporate v7
> and
> > McAfee VS 8.0.x on both a Windows 2000 server and another Windows XP

> > workstation.  The VS8 access-protection log does NOT block actions
and the
> log
> > file doesn't show it interfering with copying the file.
> >
> > This cost my client an hour or so of my time this morning; the
system is
> not
> > "mine" but is maintained by someone providing GPS-in-golf-carts to a
golf
> > course, and I'm involved because we've interfaced the GPS to some
> golf-tourney
> > software by a third-party ...
> >
> > I disabled OnAccess scanning and still couldn't copy the file:
> >
> > --- Included Stuff Follows ---
> >
> > C:\TEMP> dir v:\downloads\*setup*
> > 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 setup.exe
> > 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 XXsetupXX.ZIP
> >
> > C:\TEMP> copy v:\downloads\setup.exe Access is denied.
> >0 file(s) copied.
> >
> > C:\TEMP> copy v:\Downloads\XXsetupXX.ZIP
> >1 file(s) copied.
> >
> > - Included Stuff Ends -
> >
> > Running processes on the system which can't copy files, as shown by
> PSList:
> >
> > --- Included Stuff Follows ---
> >
> > PsList 1.23 - Process Information Lister Copyright (C) 1999-2002 
> > Mark Russinovich Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
> >
> > Process memory detail for basestation:
> >
> > Name  Pid  VM  WS   WS PkPriv   Faults NonP Page
> PageFile
> > Idle0   0  16   0   0000
> 0
> > System  41876 2122020  28 653000
> 0
> > smss  6043544 352 448 144  22005
> 144
> > csrss 668   26236246438681712 48405   54
> 1712
> > winlogon  692   603401508   11992937213253   31   64
> 9372
> > services  736   36608518851882024 18607   39
> 2024
> > lsass 748   41724726873483944 29849   40
> 3944
> > svchost   908   62500512051642796 16186   39
> 2796
> > svchost   984   34704412841361740 1212   13   37
> 1740
> > svchost  1072   97696   21236   31520   1325625442   52  108
> 13256
> > svchost  1108   29768324832721232  9083   29
> 1232
> > svchost  1272   37484432043201864 16335   36
> 1864
> > spoolsv  1420   41388465246603052 13224   39
> 3052
> > AWHOST32 1528  1926328988   102483880 77508  170
> 3880
> > OPHALDCS 1564   1286813521364 340  3411   32
> 340
> > ibguard  1676   2737226522888 664  9892   26
> 664
> > ibserver 1732   55040   16124   16360   12948515328   32
> 12948
> > ramaint  1760   29408314831561084  8042   30
> 1084
> > LogMeIn  1812   741089904993213228   38   57
> 
> > FrameworkSe  1960   50460692871923408 70266   43
> 3408
> > Mcshield 1980  106884   53628   57396   52436   1164078   38
> 52436
> > VsTskMgr 2012   47876 31640123868 23664   34
> 3868
> > naPrdMgr 2020   42608 98432723408 23123   38
> 3408
> > TAService 256   60584860887123708 7253   38   46
> 3708
> > WinVNC440   37480339636321036 11824   29
> 1036
> > AdLinkServi   524  101508   167

Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Angus Scott-Fleming]

On 4 Jan 2008 at 12:23, Eric Woodford  wrote:

> group policy?

None in place AFAIK.

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
+---+




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Angus Scott-Fleming]

On 4 Jan 2008 at 15:29, Durf  wrote:

> I was surprised by this when doing a fresh install the other day.
> When exactly did this feature get introduced, anyone recall?  Is it
> 2003 R2?

XP SP2.  Does anyone have an MSKB link or some other documentation on this?

A

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
+---+




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[kenw]

I'm kind of puzzled about all this anti-Symantec sentiment.  I'm been
using their SAV Corporate Edition for several years for small
businesses, and found it worked quite well, much easier to manage than
McAfee, more reliable than Trend, very few conflicts. ( I've never used
NOD32. )  We've had very few problems with SAV clients.  I'm quite
mystified about all the fuss.

 

Having said that, I'm having major reservations re: SEP (SAV 11).  Its
RAM footprint may be much reduced, but RAM is cheap these days and
everything else uses more too.  But it really eats up the CPU - you need
a dedicated server for the management console, and if you're running
virtual machines, a few guests with SEP pretty well eats up the whole
host.  Symantec says they're working on it...

 

FWIW, we do small business almost exclusively.

 

/kenw

 

From: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: January-04-08 10:03 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 



"Tim Vander Kooi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/04/2008 11:14:46
AM:

> The fact REALLY is that Symantec buys up good software and 
> makes it bad. 

That may be, but it appears NOD (the current list favorite) just shot
themselves in the foot too. 

I find that ironic and amusing at the same time.   Perhaps it's just me.


Now, I'm no Symantec apologist (far from it) but I think if anything,
it's important to point out that there isn't any one program or vendor
out there that is perfect, and that simply changing software vendors
isn't always the magic bullet.  I fight that battle all the time -
sometimes it is better to grunt it out and make your current solution
work then investing the time and resources into completely redeploying
an new solution and re-training everyone.  Obviously, if you only have a
couple of hundred PC's it's far easier to rip and replace then when you
have 70,000 - but there are still costs (at least in time and
productivity) that should be considered. 

I have been watching the discussions of AV products over the past few
months pretty closely because Symantec clients are such a pain to
maintain.  But it looks like with their new product, there is finally
some hope after all.  And their management console *is* very nice, even
if maintaining the 9.x, 10.x and 11.x clients are a total PITA.  So far
I haven't seen enough pro's/con's from other products discussed to
convince me to try to gear up for a change in my organization.  I freely
admit some of that is the difficulties of doing so politically vs.
product capabilities - not technical reasons, but it's still part of the
equation. 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange
protein; it rejects it."
-  P. B. Medawar 






 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Persistent Mapped Drive

[Roger Wright]

Thanks... don't particularly care for the drawbacks but will try to
mitigate with obscurity.


Roger Wright
Network Administrator
Evatone, Inc.
727.572.7076  x388


No trees were harmed in the sending of this message - but billions of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.


-Original Message-
From: Steve Kelsay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:32 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Persistent Mapped Drive

Two ways.
1. Set a GPO or local policy to select a script during startup as
opposed to login:
Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Scripts(Startup/shutdown)
Drawback, settung the user and password setting in the script 2. Run the
same script from the registry "Run" key. Same drawback.


I am doing this on a server to map a remote drive for an application
that cannot use UNC connections and must have a drive letter.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 15:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Persistent Mapped Drive

I need to map a drive to a network share and have it remain even when no
one is logged in.  Checked the " Reconnect at logon" box and maps the
connection again when logging in, however, I need this drive to be
consistent for a web app.



Roger Wright
Network Administrator
Evatone, Inc.
727.572.7076  x388


"Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the
feeling that nothing remains to be said." - Jean Rostand


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Persistent Mapped Drive

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

What Michael said.  You cannot have a mapped drive without a user context,
so UNC sounds like the best way to proceed.


On Jan 4, 2008 3:18 PM, Roger Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I need to map a drive to a network share and have it remain even when no
> one is logged in.  Checked the " Reconnect at logon" box and maps the
> connection again when logging in, however, I need this drive to be
> consistent for a web app.
>
>
>
> Roger Wright
> Network Administrator
> Evatone, Inc.
> 727.572.7076  x388
> 
>
> "Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the
> feeling that nothing remains to be said." - Jean Rostand
>
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~
>



-- 
ME2

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Christopher Boggs]

I thought it was around the time of XP SP2...  I've only been snagged by
it a couple times since - but of course it took while before I figured
out that was the problem, because I didn't even know it existed.


cb
-Original Message-
From: Durf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 2:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

I was surprised by this when doing a fresh install the other day.
When exactly did this feature get introduced, anyone recall?  Is it
2003 R2?

-- Durf

On Jan 4, 2008 2:11 PM, Devin Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In windoze explorer, right click the file, choose "Properties" and
click
> "Unblock".
> hth, Devin
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 12:55 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > All
> >
> > Does anyone know what program might be blocking the ability to run
or copy
> > "setup.exe" from remote drives yet allow you to copy a bit-for-bit
> identical
> > copy named XXsetupXX.ZIP, rename it (locally) to "setup.exe", and
run it
> > locally?
> >
> > System in question is an XP SP2 box running McAfee VirusScan
Corporate v7
> and
> > McAfee VS 8.0.x on both a Windows 2000 server and another Windows XP
> > workstation.  The VS8 access-protection log does NOT block actions
and the
> log
> > file doesn't show it interfering with copying the file.
> >
> > This cost my client an hour or so of my time this morning; the
system is
> not
> > "mine" but is maintained by someone providing GPS-in-golf-carts to a
golf
> > course, and I'm involved because we've interfaced the GPS to some
> golf-tourney
> > software by a third-party ...
> >
> > I disabled OnAccess scanning and still couldn't copy the file:
> >
> > --- Included Stuff Follows ---
> >
> > C:\TEMP> dir v:\downloads\*setup*
> > 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 setup.exe
> > 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 XXsetupXX.ZIP
> >
> > C:\TEMP> copy v:\downloads\setup.exe
> > Access is denied.
> >0 file(s) copied.
> >
> > C:\TEMP> copy v:\Downloads\XXsetupXX.ZIP
> >1 file(s) copied.
> >
> > - Included Stuff Ends -
> >
> > Running processes on the system which can't copy files, as shown by
> PSList:
> >
> > --- Included Stuff Follows ---
> >
> > PsList 1.23 - Process Information Lister
> > Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Mark Russinovich
> > Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
> >
> > Process memory detail for basestation:
> >
> > Name  Pid  VM  WS   WS PkPriv   Faults NonP Page
> PageFile
> > Idle0   0  16   0   0000
> 0
> > System  41876 2122020  28 653000
> 0
> > smss  6043544 352 448 144  22005
> 144
> > csrss 668   26236246438681712 48405   54
> 1712
> > winlogon  692   603401508   11992937213253   31   64
> 9372
> > services  736   36608518851882024 18607   39
> 2024
> > lsass 748   41724726873483944 29849   40
> 3944
> > svchost   908   62500512051642796 16186   39
> 2796
> > svchost   984   34704412841361740 1212   13   37
> 1740
> > svchost  1072   97696   21236   31520   1325625442   52  108
> 13256
> > svchost  1108   29768324832721232  9083   29
> 1232
> > svchost  1272   37484432043201864 16335   36
> 1864
> > spoolsv  1420   41388465246603052 13224   39
> 3052
> > AWHOST32 1528  1926328988   102483880 77508  170
> 3880
> > OPHALDCS 1564   1286813521364 340  3411   32
> 340
> > ibguard  1676   2737226522888 664  9892   26
> 664
> > ibserver 1732   55040   16124   16360   12948515328   32
> 12948
> > ramaint  1760   29408314831561084  8042   30
> 1084
> > LogMeIn  1812   741089904993213228   38   57
> 
> > FrameworkSe  1960   50460692871923408 70266   43
> 3408
> > Mcshield 1980  106884   53628   57396   52436   1164078   38
> 52436
> > VsTskMgr 2012   47876 31640123868 23664   34
> 3868
> > naPrdMgr 2020   42608 98432723408 23123   38
> 3408
> > TAService 256   60584860887123708 7253   38   46
> 3708
> > WinVNC440   37480339636321036 11824   29
> 1036
> > AdLinkServi   524  101508   16784   16784   11680 49888   53
> 11680
> > alg  2152   32636345234601120  8995   35
> 1120
> > explorer 3016   62088   17848   18224   12324200457   55
> 12324
> > hkcmd3300   30204378440201480 11403   31
> 1480
> > shstat   3308   40780186037723452 38603   35
> 3452
> > UpdaterUI3352   38876 22040481100   

Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Durf]

I was surprised by this when doing a fresh install the other day.
When exactly did this feature get introduced, anyone recall?  Is it
2003 R2?

-- Durf

On Jan 4, 2008 2:11 PM, Devin Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In windoze explorer, right click the file, choose "Properties" and click
> "Unblock".
> hth, Devin
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 12:55 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > All
> >
> > Does anyone know what program might be blocking the ability to run or copy
> > "setup.exe" from remote drives yet allow you to copy a bit-for-bit
> identical
> > copy named XXsetupXX.ZIP, rename it (locally) to "setup.exe", and run it
> > locally?
> >
> > System in question is an XP SP2 box running McAfee VirusScan Corporate v7
> and
> > McAfee VS 8.0.x on both a Windows 2000 server and another Windows XP
> > workstation.  The VS8 access-protection log does NOT block actions and the
> log
> > file doesn't show it interfering with copying the file.
> >
> > This cost my client an hour or so of my time this morning; the system is
> not
> > "mine" but is maintained by someone providing GPS-in-golf-carts to a golf
> > course, and I'm involved because we've interfaced the GPS to some
> golf-tourney
> > software by a third-party ...
> >
> > I disabled OnAccess scanning and still couldn't copy the file:
> >
> > --- Included Stuff Follows ---
> >
> > C:\TEMP> dir v:\downloads\*setup*
> > 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 setup.exe
> > 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 XXsetupXX.ZIP
> >
> > C:\TEMP> copy v:\downloads\setup.exe
> > Access is denied.
> >0 file(s) copied.
> >
> > C:\TEMP> copy v:\Downloads\XXsetupXX.ZIP
> >1 file(s) copied.
> >
> > - Included Stuff Ends -
> >
> > Running processes on the system which can't copy files, as shown by
> PSList:
> >
> > --- Included Stuff Follows ---
> >
> > PsList 1.23 - Process Information Lister
> > Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Mark Russinovich
> > Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
> >
> > Process memory detail for basestation:
> >
> > Name  Pid  VM  WS   WS PkPriv   Faults NonP Page
> PageFile
> > Idle0   0  16   0   0000
> 0
> > System  41876 2122020  28 653000
> 0
> > smss  6043544 352 448 144  22005
> 144
> > csrss 668   26236246438681712 48405   54
> 1712
> > winlogon  692   603401508   11992937213253   31   64
> 9372
> > services  736   36608518851882024 18607   39
> 2024
> > lsass 748   41724726873483944 29849   40
> 3944
> > svchost   908   62500512051642796 16186   39
> 2796
> > svchost   984   34704412841361740 1212   13   37
> 1740
> > svchost  1072   97696   21236   31520   1325625442   52  108
> 13256
> > svchost  1108   29768324832721232  9083   29
> 1232
> > svchost  1272   37484432043201864 16335   36
> 1864
> > spoolsv  1420   41388465246603052 13224   39
> 3052
> > AWHOST32 1528  1926328988   102483880 77508  170
> 3880
> > OPHALDCS 1564   1286813521364 340  3411   32
> 340
> > ibguard  1676   2737226522888 664  9892   26
> 664
> > ibserver 1732   55040   16124   16360   12948515328   32
> 12948
> > ramaint  1760   29408314831561084  8042   30
> 1084
> > LogMeIn  1812   741089904993213228   38   57
> 
> > FrameworkSe  1960   50460692871923408 70266   43
> 3408
> > Mcshield 1980  106884   53628   57396   52436   1164078   38
> 52436
> > VsTskMgr 2012   47876 31640123868 23664   34
> 3868
> > naPrdMgr 2020   42608 98432723408 23123   38
> 3408
> > TAService 256   60584860887123708 7253   38   46
> 3708
> > WinVNC440   37480339636321036 11824   29
> 1036
> > AdLinkServi   524  101508   16784   16784   11680 49888   53
> 11680
> > alg  2152   32636345234601120  8995   35
> 1120
> > explorer 3016   62088   17848   18224   12324200457   55
> 12324
> > hkcmd3300   30204378440201480 11403   31
> 1480
> > shstat   3308   40780186037723452 38603   35
> 3452
> > UpdaterUI3352   38876 22040481100193733   37
> 1100
> > LogMeInSyst  1432   41716552098842036 39574   42
> 2036
> > GEMService   2432   87424638064683448 5953   45   41
> 3448
> > Tracker  2876   65412   35080   61840   30372169134   35
> 30372
> > PersistentS  3660   37436493250481380 16534   32
> 1380
> > TIM  3676   2857230563292 7

RE: Persistent Mapped Drive

[Steve Kelsay]

Two ways.
1. Set a GPO or local policy to select a script during startup as
opposed to login:
Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Scripts(Startup/shutdown)
Drawback, settung the user and password setting in the script
2. Run the same script from the registry "Run" key. Same drawback.


I am doing this on a server to map a remote drive for an application
that cannot use UNC connections and must have a drive letter.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 15:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Persistent Mapped Drive

I need to map a drive to a network share and have it remain even when no
one is logged in.  Checked the " Reconnect at logon" box and maps the
connection again when logging in, however, I need this drive to be
consistent for a web app.



Roger Wright
Network Administrator
Evatone, Inc.
727.572.7076  x388


"Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the
feeling that nothing remains to be said." - Jean Rostand


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Persistent Mapped Drive

[Michael B. Smith]

Change the web app to use UNC.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-Original Message-
From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Persistent Mapped Drive

I need to map a drive to a network share and have it remain even when no
one is logged in.  Checked the " Reconnect at logon" box and maps the
connection again when logging in, however, I need this drive to be
consistent for a web app.



Roger Wright
Network Administrator
Evatone, Inc.
727.572.7076  x388


"Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the
feeling that nothing remains to be said." - Jean Rostand


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Eric Woodford]

group policy?

On Jan 4, 2008 10:55 AM, Angus Scott-Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> All
>
> Does anyone know what program might be blocking the ability to run or copy
> "setup.exe" from remote drives yet allow you to copy a bit-for-bit
> identical
> copy named XXsetupXX.ZIP, rename it (locally) to "setup.exe", and run it
> locally?
>
> System in question is an XP SP2 box running McAfee VirusScan Corporate v7
> and
> McAfee VS 8.0.x on both a Windows 2000 server and another Windows XP
> workstation.  The VS8 access-protection log does NOT block actions and the
> log
> file doesn't show it interfering with copying the file.
>
> This cost my client an hour or so of my time this morning; the system is
> not
> "mine" but is maintained by someone providing GPS-in-golf-carts to a golf
> course, and I'm involved because we've interfaced the GPS to some
> golf-tourney
> software by a third-party ...
>
> I disabled OnAccess scanning and still couldn't copy the file:
>
> --- Included Stuff Follows ---
>
> C:\TEMP> dir v:\downloads\*setup*
> 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 setup.exe
> 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 XXsetupXX.ZIP
>
> C:\TEMP> copy v:\downloads\setup.exe
> Access is denied.
>0 file(s) copied.
>
> C:\TEMP> copy v:\Downloads\XXsetupXX.ZIP
>1 file(s) copied.
>
> - Included Stuff Ends -
>
> Running processes on the system which can't copy files, as shown by
> PSList:
>
> --- Included Stuff Follows ---
>
> PsList 1.23 - Process Information Lister
> Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Mark Russinovich
> Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
>
> Process memory detail for basestation:
>
> Name  Pid  VM  WS   WS PkPriv   Faults NonP Page
> PageFile
> Idle0   0  16   0   0000
>  0
> System  41876 2122020  28 653000
>  0
> smss  6043544 352 448 144  22005
>  144
> csrss 668   26236246438681712 48405   54
> 1712
> winlogon  692   603401508   11992937213253   31   64
> 9372
> services  736   36608518851882024 18607   39
> 2024
> lsass 748   41724726873483944 29849   40
> 3944
> svchost   908   62500512051642796 16186   39
> 2796
> svchost   984   34704412841361740 1212   13   37
> 1740
> svchost  1072   97696   21236   31520   1325625442   52  108
>  13256
> svchost  1108   29768324832721232  9083   29
> 1232
> svchost  1272   37484432043201864 16335   36
> 1864
> spoolsv  1420   41388465246603052 13224   39
> 3052
> AWHOST32 1528  1926328988   102483880 77508  170
> 3880
> OPHALDCS 1564   1286813521364 340  3411   32
>  340
> ibguard  1676   2737226522888 664  9892   26
>  664
> ibserver 1732   55040   16124   16360   12948515328   32
>  12948
> ramaint  1760   29408314831561084  8042   30
> 1084
> LogMeIn  1812   741089904993213228   38   57
> 
> FrameworkSe  1960   50460692871923408 70266   43
> 3408
> Mcshield 1980  106884   53628   57396   52436   1164078   38
>  52436
> VsTskMgr 2012   47876 31640123868 23664   34
> 3868
> naPrdMgr 2020   42608 98432723408 23123   38
> 3408
> TAService 256   60584860887123708 7253   38   46
> 3708
> WinVNC440   37480339636321036 11824   29
> 1036
> AdLinkServi   524  101508   16784   16784   11680 49888   53
>  11680
> alg  2152   32636345234601120  8995   35
> 1120
> explorer 3016   62088   17848   18224   12324200457   55
>  12324
> hkcmd3300   30204378440201480 11403   31
> 1480
> shstat   3308   40780186037723452 38603   35
> 3452
> UpdaterUI3352   38876 22040481100193733   37
> 1100
> LogMeInSyst  1432   41716552098842036 39574   42
> 2036
> GEMService   2432   87424638064683448 5953   45   41
> 3448
> Tracker  2876   65412   35080   61840   30372169134   35
>  30372
> PersistentS  3660   37436493250481380 16534   32
> 1380
> TIM  3676   2857230563292 772  9582   28
>  772
> PinPlacemen  3792   27432520073441816 40084   23
> 1816
> RecorderUti  2956   3214037643880 932 10653   31
>  932
> Logger   3424   2932433043532 752 11103   30
>  752
> Upgrader 2536   36852460473241236 32644   33
> 1236
> OrderLink3236   32888438845041172 13116   32
> 1172
> VPTMC3564   3931622245372

Persistent Mapped Drive

[Roger Wright]

I need to map a drive to a network share and have it remain even when no
one is logged in.  Checked the " Reconnect at logon" box and maps the
connection again when logging in, however, I need this drive to be
consistent for a web app.



Roger Wright
Network Administrator
Evatone, Inc.
727.572.7076  x388


"Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the
feeling that nothing remains to be said." - Jean Rostand


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

multiple DNS entries

[Miguel Gonzalez Castaños]

Hi,

  We have server1 and server2 IIS servers. Server2 is going to replace 
server1. We keep different entries in the DNS server of our DC for 
testing the IIS sites after being migrated in server2 so We have 
site1.domain.com pointing to server1 and site1new.domain.com pointing to 
server2. This is happening for all the sites that we have in server1. So 
currently We have some sites migrated in server2 and some old sites 
still in server1. Is there any easy way (a script or command) to move 
the entries in the DNS from server2 to server1 (those entries are real 
IP addresses) when We finish all the migration? There are entries that 
are not pointing to server1 anymore (they were already migrated and are 
pointing to server2).


  Thanks,

  Miguel

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

multiple DNS entries

[Miguel Gonzalez Castaños]

Hi,

  We have server1 and server2 IIS servers. Server2 is going to replace
server1. We keep different entries in the DNS server of our DC for
testing the IIS sites after being migrated in server2 so We have
site1.domain.com pointing to server1 and site1new.domain.com pointing to
server2. This is happening for all the sites that we have in server1. So
currently We have some sites migrated in server2 and some old sites
still in server1. Is there any easy way (a script or command) to move
the entries in the DNS from server2 to server1 (those entries are real
IP addresses) when We finish all the migration? There are entries that
are not pointing to server1 anymore (they were already migrated and are
pointing to server2).

  Thanks,

  Miguel


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Microsoft licensing question

[Joe Heaton]

Thank you Carl, appreciate the link too.  Buzzing around doing a thousand 
things today and didn’t think to google it myself…

 

Joe Heaton

 

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:12 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Microsoft licensing question

 

 

HYPERLINK 
"http://www.google.com/search?q=vista+downgrade"http://www.google.com/search?q=vista+downgrade

 

Unsponsored Match #4 is a PDF file of Microsoft's answers to your questions.

 

Cliff notes:  You can downgrade Vista Business and Vista Ultimate OEM to XP 
Pro.  Use your own XP media and any product key you have handy, and if it fails 
to activate, call them on the phone and explain and they're supposed to give 
you an activation code.

 

Carl

 

   _  

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 2:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Microsoft licensing question

 

I know I should ask our licensing vendor, but I don’t know who that is at the 
moment, so I’ll ask you guys.

 

We purchased about 30 desktops a while back, with Vista installed.  Do I have 
downgrade rights on OEM purchases, so that I can wipe these machines and 
install XP?  If not, how can I go about doing this legally?

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 








 

 
 
 







 

No virus found in this outgoing message.



Checked by AVG Free Edition.



Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 
12:05 PM



 

 

 

 







 


No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 
7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 
12:05 PM
 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Microsoft licensing question

[Sam Cayze]

I was told by my license vender that this is perfectly fine to do FYI.  



From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 1:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Microsoft licensing question




I know I should ask our licensing vendor, but I don't know who that is
at the moment, so I'll ask you guys.

 

We purchased about 30 desktops a while back, with Vista installed.  Do I
have downgrade rights on OEM purchases, so that I can wipe these
machines and install XP?  If not, how can I go about doing this legally?

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 













No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date:
1/4/2008 12:05 PM

 



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Angus Scott-Fleming]

All

Does anyone know what program might be blocking the ability to run or copy 
"setup.exe" from remote drives yet allow you to copy a bit-for-bit identical 
copy named XXsetupXX.ZIP, rename it (locally) to "setup.exe", and run it 
locally?  

System in question is an XP SP2 box running McAfee VirusScan Corporate v7 and 
McAfee VS 8.0.x on both a Windows 2000 server and another Windows XP 
workstation.  The VS8 access-protection log does NOT block actions and the log 
file doesn't show it interfering with copying the file.  

This cost my client an hour or so of my time this morning; the system is not 
"mine" but is maintained by someone providing GPS-in-golf-carts to a golf 
course, and I'm involved because we've interfaced the GPS to some golf-tourney 
software by a third-party ...

I disabled OnAccess scanning and still couldn't copy the file:

--- Included Stuff Follows ---

C:\TEMP> dir v:\downloads\*setup*
01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 setup.exe
01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 XXsetupXX.ZIP

C:\TEMP> copy v:\downloads\setup.exe
Access is denied.
0 file(s) copied.

C:\TEMP> copy v:\Downloads\XXsetupXX.ZIP
1 file(s) copied.

- Included Stuff Ends -

Running processes on the system which can't copy files, as shown by PSList:

--- Included Stuff Follows ---

PsList 1.23 - Process Information Lister
Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Mark Russinovich
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com

Process memory detail for basestation:

Name  Pid  VM  WS   WS PkPriv   Faults NonP Page PageFile
Idle0   0  16   0   00000
System  41876 2122020  28 6530000
smss  6043544 352 448 144  22005  144
csrss 668   26236246438681712 48405   54 1712
winlogon  692   603401508   11992937213253   31   64 9372
services  736   36608518851882024 18607   39 2024
lsass 748   41724726873483944 29849   40 3944
svchost   908   62500512051642796 16186   39 2796
svchost   984   34704412841361740 1212   13   37 1740
svchost  1072   97696   21236   31520   1325625442   52  10813256
svchost  1108   29768324832721232  9083   29 1232
svchost  1272   37484432043201864 16335   36 1864
spoolsv  1420   41388465246603052 13224   39 3052
AWHOST32 1528  1926328988   102483880 77508  170 3880
OPHALDCS 1564   1286813521364 340  3411   32  340
ibguard  1676   2737226522888 664  9892   26  664
ibserver 1732   55040   16124   16360   12948515328   3212948
ramaint  1760   29408314831561084  8042   30 1084
LogMeIn  1812   741089904993213228   38   57 
FrameworkSe  1960   50460692871923408 70266   43 3408
Mcshield 1980  106884   53628   57396   52436   1164078   3852436
VsTskMgr 2012   47876 31640123868 23664   34 3868
naPrdMgr 2020   42608 98432723408 23123   38 3408
TAService 256   60584860887123708 7253   38   46 3708
WinVNC440   37480339636321036 11824   29 1036
AdLinkServi   524  101508   16784   16784   11680 49888   5311680
alg  2152   32636345234601120  8995   35 1120
explorer 3016   62088   17848   18224   12324200457   5512324
hkcmd3300   30204378440201480 11403   31 1480
shstat   3308   40780186037723452 38603   35 3452
UpdaterUI3352   38876 22040481100193733   37 1100
LogMeInSyst  1432   41716552098842036 39574   42 2036
GEMService   2432   87424638064683448 5953   45   41 3448
Tracker  2876   65412   35080   61840   30372169134   3530372
PersistentS  3660   37436493250481380 16534   32 1380
TIM  3676   2857230563292 772  9582   28  772
PinPlacemen  3792   27432520073441816 40084   23 1816
RecorderUti  2956   3214037643880 932 10653   31  932
Logger   3424   2932433043532 752 11103   30  752
Upgrader 2536   36852460473241236 32644   33 1236
OrderLink3236   32888438845041172 13116   32 1172
VPTMC3564   39316222453721572 21576   34 1572
VPGolf3  3936  2013125552   22344   13316   4646659   8113316
- Included Stuff Ends -

ibguard and ibserver 

RE: Microsoft licensing question

[Carl Houseman]

http://www.google.com/search?q=vista+downgrade
 
Unsponsored Match #4 is a PDF file of Microsoft's answers to your questions.
 
Cliff notes:  You can downgrade Vista Business and Vista Ultimate OEM to XP
Pro.  Use your own XP media and any product key you have handy, and if it
fails to activate, call them on the phone and explain and they're supposed
to give you an activation code.
 
Carl

  _  

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 2:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Microsoft licensing question




I know I should ask our licensing vendor, but I don't know who that is at
the moment, so I'll ask you guys.

 

We purchased about 30 desktops a while back, with Vista installed.  Do I
have downgrade rights on OEM purchases, so that I can wipe these machines
and install XP?  If not, how can I go about doing this legally?

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 






















No virus found in this outgoing message.


Checked by AVG Free Edition.


Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008
12:05 PM


 



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Can't run or copy remote "setup.exe"

[Devin Meade]

In windoze explorer, right click the file, choose "Properties" and click
"Unblock".
hth, Devin

On Jan 4, 2008 12:55 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> All
>
> Does anyone know what program might be blocking the ability to run or copy
> "setup.exe" from remote drives yet allow you to copy a bit-for-bit
> identical
> copy named XXsetupXX.ZIP, rename it (locally) to "setup.exe", and run it
> locally?
>
> System in question is an XP SP2 box running McAfee VirusScan Corporate v7
> and
> McAfee VS 8.0.x on both a Windows 2000 server and another Windows XP
> workstation.  The VS8 access-protection log does NOT block actions and the
> log
> file doesn't show it interfering with copying the file.
>
> This cost my client an hour or so of my time this morning; the system is
> not
> "mine" but is maintained by someone providing GPS-in-golf-carts to a golf
> course, and I'm involved because we've interfaced the GPS to some
> golf-tourney
> software by a third-party ...
>
> I disabled OnAccess scanning and still couldn't copy the file:
>
> --- Included Stuff Follows ---
>
> C:\TEMP> dir v:\downloads\*setup*
> 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 setup.exe
> 01/04/2008  08:43 AM 5,407,371 XXsetupXX.ZIP
>
> C:\TEMP> copy v:\downloads\setup.exe
> Access is denied.
>0 file(s) copied.
>
> C:\TEMP> copy v:\Downloads\XXsetupXX.ZIP
>1 file(s) copied.
>
> - Included Stuff Ends -
>
> Running processes on the system which can't copy files, as shown by
> PSList:
>
> --- Included Stuff Follows ---
>
> PsList 1.23 - Process Information Lister
> Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Mark Russinovich
> Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
>
> Process memory detail for basestation:
>
> Name  Pid  VM  WS   WS PkPriv   Faults NonP Page
> PageFile
> Idle0   0  16   0   0000
>  0
> System  41876 2122020  28 653000
>  0
> smss  6043544 352 448 144  22005
>  144
> csrss 668   26236246438681712 48405   54
> 1712
> winlogon  692   603401508   11992937213253   31   64
> 9372
> services  736   36608518851882024 18607   39
> 2024
> lsass 748   41724726873483944 29849   40
> 3944
> svchost   908   62500512051642796 16186   39
> 2796
> svchost   984   34704412841361740 1212   13   37
> 1740
> svchost  1072   97696   21236   31520   1325625442   52  108
>  13256
> svchost  1108   29768324832721232  9083   29
> 1232
> svchost  1272   37484432043201864 16335   36
> 1864
> spoolsv  1420   41388465246603052 13224   39
> 3052
> AWHOST32 1528  1926328988   102483880 77508  170
> 3880
> OPHALDCS 1564   1286813521364 340  3411   32
>  340
> ibguard  1676   2737226522888 664  9892   26
>  664
> ibserver 1732   55040   16124   16360   12948515328   32
>  12948
> ramaint  1760   29408314831561084  8042   30
> 1084
> LogMeIn  1812   741089904993213228   38   57
> 
> FrameworkSe  1960   50460692871923408 70266   43
> 3408
> Mcshield 1980  106884   53628   57396   52436   1164078   38
>  52436
> VsTskMgr 2012   47876 31640123868 23664   34
> 3868
> naPrdMgr 2020   42608 98432723408 23123   38
> 3408
> TAService 256   60584860887123708 7253   38   46
> 3708
> WinVNC440   37480339636321036 11824   29
> 1036
> AdLinkServi   524  101508   16784   16784   11680 49888   53
>  11680
> alg  2152   32636345234601120  8995   35
> 1120
> explorer 3016   62088   17848   18224   12324200457   55
>  12324
> hkcmd3300   30204378440201480 11403   31
> 1480
> shstat   3308   40780186037723452 38603   35
> 3452
> UpdaterUI3352   38876 22040481100193733   37
> 1100
> LogMeInSyst  1432   41716552098842036 39574   42
> 2036
> GEMService   2432   87424638064683448 5953   45   41
> 3448
> Tracker  2876   65412   35080   61840   30372169134   35
>  30372
> PersistentS  3660   37436493250481380 16534   32
> 1380
> TIM  3676   2857230563292 772  9582   28
>  772
> PinPlacemen  3792   27432520073441816 40084   23
> 1816
> RecorderUti  2956   3214037643880 932 10653   31
>  932
> Logger   3424   2932433043532 752 11103   30
>  752
> Upgrader 2536   36852460473241236 32644   33
> 1236
> OrderLink3236   3288843884504 

Microsoft licensing question

[Joe Heaton]

I know I should ask our licensing vendor, but I don’t know who that is at the 
moment, so I’ll ask you guys.

 

We purchased about 30 desktops a while back, with Vista installed.  Do I have 
downgrade rights on OEM purchases, so that I can wipe these machines and 
install XP?  If not, how can I go about doing this legally?

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 
12:05 PM
 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Commercial monitoring software with client-side agent ?

[Oliver Marshall]

Lo gang,

 

Best of the new year to you all and stuff.


Can anyone recommend a commercial monitoring package that uses client
agent software to monitor aspects of the monitored box ? We currently
use Zabbix which does this, but we have a few problems with it, and
given the limits of time I reckon it's probably worth looking to pay for
something with good support.

 

Any suggestions? The only requirement is that it has to run on Windows
(the monitoring server part) and mustn't cost so much that I have sell
my first born child.

 

Olly


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Jim Majorowicz]

They didn't make the SMB upgrades "no brainer" upgrades until 3.5..
Upgrading from 2.0 to 3.0 was an adventure EVERYTIME I had to do one.  Of
course the issue was more of a 2.0 to *ANY* upgrade, at least in my
experience, but the 3.0 to 3.5 upgrades were fine and the 3.6 upgrades were
a breeze.

-Original Message-
From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:50 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

Just curiousI've used Trend for several years with only 1 real issue
(an update they sent out pegged the CPU - this was a couple years ago),
has anyone else had real problems with it? I haven't seen performance
issues or anything  else amiss.

Makes my job as a consultant too easy in that regard.

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 




-Original Message-
From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

The alternate update is possible in v2.7.

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

How do you handle laptops with the mirror?  We've got remote users that
could go weeks without connecting to the mirror. In v3, I was able to
setup
an alternate profile for when they couldn't access the mirror and it
fail
back to using the Internet.  I've heard that it is supposed to be
possible
to do that in 2.x or that a lot of people just don't use the mirror and
have
everyone go directly to ESET to guarantee updates no matter what.

Any guidance on that first question? Uninstall v3 then push 2.7 or can I
push 2.7 over v3?

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:21 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?
>
>Split update, as in two profiles?
>I make a mirror and let all my clients update from that.
>I definitely reco 2.7 over 3, but you knew that:)


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Kurt Buff]

That's a new one to me.

Cool.

On Jan 4, 2008 8:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Icacls. Builtin.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael B. Smith
> MCSE/Exchange MVP
> http://TheEssentialExchange.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:35 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
> software question
>
> I know about dumpacl, but need it on an automated fashion, and need to
> be able to restore the permissions quickly back to a previous version
> accordingly. I am usually dealing with complex permissions structures of
> TB's of data, so getting things back the way it need to be quick is very
> important.
>
> Z
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Kurt Buff]

On Jan 4, 2008 8:34 AM, Ziots, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know about dumpacl, but need it on an automated fashion, and need to
> be able to restore the permissions quickly back to a previous version
> accordingly. I am usually dealing with complex permissions structures of
> TB's of data, so getting things back the way it need to be quick is very
> important.

That's the beauty of fileacl.exe - you can specify that the output be
in the form of a batch file that can immediately be executed.
Following are the first few lines from the output of the scheduled
task for the K: drive on our file server:

FILEACL k:\ /S "NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM":F /S "BUILTIN\Administrators":F
/REPLACE /PROTECT
FILEACL "k:\DC-Backups" /S "MYCOMPANY\_backup":RWXD
FILEACL "k:\Finance-Confidential" /S "MYCOMPANY\FinanceConf":RWXD
FILEACL "k:\FWConfigs" /S "MYCOMPANY\_Service":RWXD
FILEACL "k:\Groups\Admin" /S "MYCOMPANY\Admin":RWXD /S
"BUILTIN\Administrators":RWXD/U/U /S "CREATOR OWNER":U/U/RWXD /S
"MYCOMPANY\Domain Users":RX/U/U
FILEACL "k:\Groups\Admin\Local Area" /S "MYCOMPANY\Domain Users":RX /S
"MYCOMPANY\Domain Users":RX
FILEACL "k:\Groups\Admin\Public" /S "MYCOMPANY\Domain Users":RX

If executed on the file server, it will immediately replace the
permissions with the above. Tres Cool.

Kurt

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Kurt Buff]

On Jan 4, 2008 8:04 AM, Ziots, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
> time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the
> permissions and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic
> and Security Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not
> played with personally)

I use a batch job for NTFS permissions, using fileacl.exe. It runs
every night, and sends me a diff between that and the previous day. I
store the output of each run for a year. You can do similar things
with rmtshare.exe from the RK.

> 2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to
> a SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can
> see this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI,
> SMS, MOM, Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track
> the following: AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level,
> server permission changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder
> level, with a nice reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive
> with this) ( Also its an internal audit recommendation)
>
> Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation.

IntersectAlliance's GPL'ed Snare client, logging to Kiwisoft's $100
(last time I checked) syslog server, which provides ODBC and scripting
functionality. Works pretty well.

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[HELP_PC]

The 2 years ago issue (I remember it very vell)  was a thing I never had with 
Symantec SAV since version 7. Just sec issues patched after a week (and 
workaround pushed out). But it doesn't mean Trend is not a good product


GuidoElia
HELPPC

-Messaggio originale-
Da: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 18.50
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

Just curiousI've used Trend for several years with only 1 real issue (an 
update they sent out pegged the CPU - this was a couple years ago), has anyone 
else had real problems with it? I haven't seen performance issues or anything  
else amiss.

Makes my job as a consultant too easy in that regard.

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 




-Original Message-
From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

The alternate update is possible in v2.7.

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

How do you handle laptops with the mirror?  We've got remote users that
could go weeks without connecting to the mirror. In v3, I was able to
setup
an alternate profile for when they couldn't access the mirror and it
fail
back to using the Internet.  I've heard that it is supposed to be
possible
to do that in 2.x or that a lot of people just don't use the mirror and
have
everyone go directly to ESET to guarantee updates no matter what.

Any guidance on that first question? Uninstall v3 then push 2.7 or can I
push 2.7 over v3?

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:21 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?
>
>Split update, as in two profiles?
>I make a mirror and let all my clients update from that.
>I definitely reco 2.7 over 3, but you knew that:)


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[David Lum]

Active Administrator worked pretty well for tracking changes when I
demo'd it.

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 




-Original Message-
From: James Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:23 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server
permissions software question

Not sure about any audit policy allowing for logging of specific
attribute changes, but the rest of the things you specified should be
available, depending on both your audit policy as well as configuring
auditing on your servers.  You also need to be aware that the
permissions changes auditing is not 100% accurate - we have this enabled
and configured right now, but it is impossible to decipher when an event
is logged regarding permissions actually being changed, and when it is
because someone with rights to change permissions just viewed the
permissions of a file/folder.  They are both logged under the same event
ID :(

As far as AD changes, as long as you are using a product to collect all
the logs to a central location, it is going to be a function of what
reporting does the product provide, as well as knowing your event ID's
for what you are looking for.  What you have listed is just a start.
Are you also looking at collecting logs from network devices?  Do you
have a price point you are looking for?  How many servers (DC's and
other servers) are you looking to log against?  What kind of reporting
are you hoping for (automatically emailed reports, web interface, etc.)?
Do you want a product that can send you alerts?  Are you just looking at
reporting on servers?

GFI may be one of the lower-priced options for your requirements,
depending on the number of devices you want to collect against, as well
as the number of events per second you think are going to be logged.  I
think enVision and loglogic would be at the upper tier, but may also
offer more functionality regarding event capture capabilities.  GFI says
their scanning engine can collect up to 6 million events/hr, but that
only translates to 1667 events/second.  We have had times where our
events per second has spiked at over 9000 before (including firewall
logs), but have spiked over 5000 with server logs.

Sorry for the long-winded reply - feel free to contact me off-list if
you want more details on what we currently capture and our experiences
with log management.

James Winzenz
Infrastructure Engineer - Security
Pulte Homes Information Services


-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:04 AM
Posted To: NTSysadmin
Conversation: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server
permissions software question
Subject: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
software question


To the list, 

After much angst and nagging, I have been given the go ahead to take a
look into software that will do the following. For those with experience
in using software to cover these areas and others, please feel free to
chime in what has worked well for you and your staffs. 

I need the software to do the following. 

1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the
permissions and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic
and Security Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not
played with personally)

2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to
a SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can
see this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI,
SMS, MOM, Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track
the following: AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level,
server permission changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder
level, with a nice reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive
with this) ( Also its an internal audit recommendation) 

Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation. 

Z

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~ 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email may contain confidential and
privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  Any
review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any
file attachments from your computer.  Thank you.

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[David Lum]

Just curiousI've used Trend for several years with only 1 real issue
(an update they sent out pegged the CPU - this was a couple years ago),
has anyone else had real problems with it? I haven't seen performance
issues or anything  else amiss.

Makes my job as a consultant too easy in that regard.

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 




-Original Message-
From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

The alternate update is possible in v2.7.

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

How do you handle laptops with the mirror?  We've got remote users that
could go weeks without connecting to the mirror. In v3, I was able to
setup
an alternate profile for when they couldn't access the mirror and it
fail
back to using the Internet.  I've heard that it is supposed to be
possible
to do that in 2.x or that a lot of people just don't use the mirror and
have
everyone go directly to ESET to guarantee updates no matter what.

Any guidance on that first question? Uninstall v3 then push 2.7 or can I
push 2.7 over v3?

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:21 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?
>
>Split update, as in two profiles?
>I make a mirror and let all my clients update from that.
>I definitely reco 2.7 over 3, but you knew that:)


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Ziots, Edward]

Cool, 

Yeah Icacls is only for Win2k3 SP2, which is not the majority of my
file-server systems. I have a mix of NAS devices on EMC celerra, Win2k,
Win2k3, etc etc servers that I need visibility over. 

As for AD, I need to see a attribute by attribute change in readable
characters ( not SID's and GUIDS that I have to hunt down via ADFIND or
some other method, if someone made a change to an account I want to see
what it was before and afterwards, and be able to roll it back
accordingly, usually these events are auditing under 566, 565 Account
Management. 

Z

-Original Message-
From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 12:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server
permissions software question

Security Explorer is pretty good for #1 "Z" . We use it here to backup
permissions, NTFS, etc. Does a good job for us.

Tom


-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
software question


To the list, 

After much angst and nagging, I have been given the go ahead to take a
look into software that will do the following. For those with experience
in using software to cover these areas and others, please feel free to
chime in what has worked well for you and your staffs. 

I need the software to do the following. 

1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the
permissions and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic
and Security Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not
played with personally)

2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to
a SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can
see this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI,
SMS, MOM, Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track
the following: AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level,
server permission changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder
level, with a nice reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive
with this) ( Also its an internal audit recommendation) 

Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation. 

Z

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Tim Vander Kooi]

The alternate update is possible in v2.7.

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

How do you handle laptops with the mirror?  We've got remote users that
could go weeks without connecting to the mirror. In v3, I was able to
setup
an alternate profile for when they couldn't access the mirror and it
fail
back to using the Internet.  I've heard that it is supposed to be
possible
to do that in 2.x or that a lot of people just don't use the mirror and
have
everyone go directly to ESET to guarantee updates no matter what.

Any guidance on that first question? Uninstall v3 then push 2.7 or can I
push 2.7 over v3?

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:21 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?
>
>Split update, as in two profiles?
>I make a mirror and let all my clients update from that.
>I definitely reco 2.7 over 3, but you knew that:)


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Joseph L. Casale]

Let their default profile be the eset servers.

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

How do you handle laptops with the mirror?  We've got remote users that
could go weeks without connecting to the mirror. In v3, I was able to setup
an alternate profile for when they couldn't access the mirror and it fail
back to using the Internet.  I've heard that it is supposed to be possible
to do that in 2.x or that a lot of people just don't use the mirror and have
everyone go directly to ESET to guarantee updates no matter what.

Any guidance on that first question? Uninstall v3 then push 2.7 or can I
push 2.7 over v3?

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:21 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?
>
>Split update, as in two profiles?
>I make a mirror and let all my clients update from that.
>I definitely reco 2.7 over 3, but you knew that:)


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Tom Strader]

Security Explorer is pretty good for #1 "Z" . We use it here to backup
permissions, NTFS, etc. Does a good job for us.

Tom


-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
software question


To the list, 

After much angst and nagging, I have been given the go ahead to take a
look into software that will do the following. For those with experience
in using software to cover these areas and others, please feel free to
chime in what has worked well for you and your staffs. 

I need the software to do the following. 

1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the
permissions and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic
and Security Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not
played with personally)

2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to
a SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can
see this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI,
SMS, MOM, Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track
the following: AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level,
server permission changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder
level, with a nice reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive
with this) ( Also its an internal audit recommendation) 

Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation. 

Z

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[James Winzenz]

Not sure about any audit policy allowing for logging of specific
attribute changes, but the rest of the things you specified should be
available, depending on both your audit policy as well as configuring
auditing on your servers.  You also need to be aware that the
permissions changes auditing is not 100% accurate - we have this enabled
and configured right now, but it is impossible to decipher when an event
is logged regarding permissions actually being changed, and when it is
because someone with rights to change permissions just viewed the
permissions of a file/folder.  They are both logged under the same event
ID :(

As far as AD changes, as long as you are using a product to collect all
the logs to a central location, it is going to be a function of what
reporting does the product provide, as well as knowing your event ID's
for what you are looking for.  What you have listed is just a start.
Are you also looking at collecting logs from network devices?  Do you
have a price point you are looking for?  How many servers (DC's and
other servers) are you looking to log against?  What kind of reporting
are you hoping for (automatically emailed reports, web interface, etc.)?
Do you want a product that can send you alerts?  Are you just looking at
reporting on servers?

GFI may be one of the lower-priced options for your requirements,
depending on the number of devices you want to collect against, as well
as the number of events per second you think are going to be logged.  I
think enVision and loglogic would be at the upper tier, but may also
offer more functionality regarding event capture capabilities.  GFI says
their scanning engine can collect up to 6 million events/hr, but that
only translates to 1667 events/second.  We have had times where our
events per second has spiked at over 9000 before (including firewall
logs), but have spiked over 5000 with server logs.

Sorry for the long-winded reply - feel free to contact me off-list if
you want more details on what we currently capture and our experiences
with log management.

James Winzenz
Infrastructure Engineer - Security
Pulte Homes Information Services


-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:04 AM
Posted To: NTSysadmin
Conversation: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server
permissions software question
Subject: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
software question


To the list, 

After much angst and nagging, I have been given the go ahead to take a
look into software that will do the following. For those with experience
in using software to cover these areas and others, please feel free to
chime in what has worked well for you and your staffs. 

I need the software to do the following. 

1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the
permissions and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic
and Security Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not
played with personally)

2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to
a SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can
see this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI,
SMS, MOM, Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track
the following: AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level,
server permission changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder
level, with a nice reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive
with this) ( Also its an internal audit recommendation) 

Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation. 

Z

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~ 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer.  
Thank you.

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Eric E Eskam]

"Tim Vander Kooi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/04/2008 11:14:46 AM:

> The fact REALLY is that Symantec buys up good software and 
> makes it bad.

That may be, but it appears NOD (the current list favorite) just shot 
themselves in the foot too.

I find that ironic and amusing at the same time.   Perhaps it's just me.

Now, I'm no Symantec apologist (far from it) but I think if anything, it's 
important to point out that there isn't any one program or vendor out 
there that is perfect, and that simply changing software vendors isn't 
always the magic bullet.  I fight that battle all the time - sometimes it 
is better to grunt it out and make your current solution work then 
investing the time and resources into completely redeploying an new 
solution and re-training everyone.  Obviously, if you only have a couple 
of hundred PC's it's far easier to rip and replace then when you have 
70,000 - but there are still costs (at least in time and productivity) 
that should be considered.

I have been watching the discussions of AV products over the past few 
months pretty closely because Symantec clients are such a pain to 
maintain.  But it looks like with their new product, there is finally some 
hope after all.  And their management console *is* very nice, even if 
maintaining the 9.x, 10.x and 11.x clients are a total PITA.  So far I 
haven't seen enough pro's/con's from other products discussed to convince 
me to try to gear up for a change in my organization.  I freely admit some 
of that is the difficulties of doing so politically vs. product 
capabilities - not technical reasons, but it's still part of the equation.

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it."
-  P. B. Medawar
~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Does Anyone Have Nortel 1120E IP Phones

[Marty Nelson]

Todd, Martin, Andy, thanks so much for your help and suggestions.  I think Soft 
Phones are indeed the way to go for what we are looking to achieve.

Thanks again!

-Marty

Oh and Todd, I may very well ping ya offline should we go this route!

From: Todd Lemmiksoo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:11 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Does Anyone Have Nortel 1120E IP Phones


The Soft Phone is the way to go with this setup. Nortel has the I2050 Soft 
Phone that our sales people use. We have also set up remote sites connecting 
back to the PBX using 1120E & 1140E phones. But not to individual homes.
We are a Nortel distributor, email me off list with any questions.

Todd Lemmiksoo
Network Administrator

All-Mode Communications, Inc.
1725 Dryden Road
Freeville, New York  13068
(607) 347-4164 x440
1-877-ALLMODE  (toll free)
http://www.all-mode.com


From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Does Anyone Have Nortel 1120E IP Phones

As I was reading this, I knew what would happen at the end. You nailed it.
Unless you expose your phone system to the net (never!) or manage to create 
site to site VPN's to you users homes, that's not going to work.
What a lot of people use in those cases are Soft Phones. Soft Phones run on 
your PC while  it is VPN'd in and offers most of the features of the phone. Ask 
about Soft Phones.

From: Marty Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:04 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Does Anyone Have Nortel 1120E IP Phones


Happy New Years all!

The company I work for picked up a couple to play with thinking that when 
people work from home, they can pick up one of these phones, take it home, plug 
into their home network, VPN into the office and we're all set.  When someone 
rings their extension in the office rings, it gets forwarded to the 1120E that 
the user has taken home.

Well, me being the guinea pig that I am volunteered to take one of these phones 
home, and it's not working.  Its addressing is setup for DHCP, so it gets an 
address from my network, with the default gateway being my wireless AP which 
makes sense to me as to why this phone isn't working  My wireless AP doesn't 
know or care about my laptops PPTP VPN connection, so it's sending the phones 
data out to the real world, or most likely dropping it altogether,

Anyhow, any help would be GREATLY appreciated, as I feel like I'm stuck here 
and don't know how to get out.

Thanks in advance,

Marty Nelson
















































~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: which is more secure? more information

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

lol, no no no...  Laundry = ancient Chinese secret = taking rest of thread
off-line

:-)


On Jan 4, 2008 11:12 AM, David Lum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>  Laundry = girlfriend
>
>
>
> *From:* Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 04, 2008 8:05 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: which is more secure? more information
>
>
>
>
>
> Nope Laundry at home, but doing your Laundry in your DMZ does sounds
> pretty Drty J
>
>
>
> Z
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 04, 2008 11:02 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: which is more secure? more information
>
>
>
>
> You do your laundry there too?
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 10:53 AM, Ziots, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I do it with one right now in the same scenario DMZ, contact me offline
> and I will give you more information on the details if you like.
>
> Z
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: roger rabus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:34 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
>
> Subject: Re: which is more secure? more information
>
>  realize now I left out some info.   The internal users will be
> creating files that the external users will be retrieving.  Is that
> still doable with two servers?
>
> Roger
>
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote:
>
> > More secure against what threat? Some external user guessing a
> > username/password? Probably the second option.
> >
> > But given that Windows Server 2000 is now out of extended support, I
> > don't really have that much confidence in either option.
> >
> > But another option would be to put the FTP server into the DMZ, and
> > create two FTP sites. One is read-only, and can be accessed by
> > anyone. The second is read/write, but you use IP restrictions to
> > ensure that only users on your internal network are able to connect
> > to it
> >
> > Cheers
> > Ken
> >
> > 
> > From: roger rabus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 11:58 AM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: which is more secure?
> >
> > hi everyone,
> >
> > Please help me determine which is more secure?
> >
> > 1. a Windows 2000 server set up for read/write Ftp that is in the DMZ
> > with only access thru a firewall both to the inside network and the
> > internet. Some users will have read/write while most will have read
> > only as defined by windows file security access.
> >
> > 2. a Windows2000 server setup for read only Ftp access thru the
> > firewall.  internal users will place files on the server via a file
> > sharing via a separate network interface to the server. External users
> > will only have read only ftp access to files.
> >
> > Roger Rabus
> > Logical Solutions
> >
> > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> > ~   ~
>
> Roger Rabus
>
> Logical Solutions
>
> 636 671 5005
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~ < http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~ < http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~
>
>
>
>
> --
> ME2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
ME2

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Michael B. Smith]

Icacls. Builtin.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
software question

I know about dumpacl, but need it on an automated fashion, and need to
be able to restore the permissions quickly back to a previous version
accordingly. I am usually dealing with complex permissions structures of
TB's of data, so getting things back the way it need to be quick is very
important. 

Z

-Original Message-
From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:29 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server
permissions software question

Used to be a utility called DumpACL, maybe now called DumpSec that may
help... Not sure if it is as 'powerful' as you want but is still good
for
documenting for recovery and audits 

-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
software question


To the list, 

After much angst and nagging, I have been given the go ahead to take a
look
into software that will do the following. For those with experience in
using
software to cover these areas and others, please feel free to chime in
what
has worked well for you and your staffs. 

I need the software to do the following. 

1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the
permissions
and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic and
Security
Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not played with
personally)

2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to
a
SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can
see
this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI, SMS,
MOM,
Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track the
following:
AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level, server permission
changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder level, with a nice
reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive with this) ( Also its
an
internal audit recommendation) 

Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation. 

Z

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date:
1/4/2008
12:05 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date:
1/4/2008
12:05 PM
 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Andy Ognenoff]

How do you handle laptops with the mirror?  We've got remote users that
could go weeks without connecting to the mirror. In v3, I was able to setup
an alternate profile for when they couldn't access the mirror and it fail
back to using the Internet.  I've heard that it is supposed to be possible
to do that in 2.x or that a lot of people just don't use the mirror and have
everyone go directly to ESET to guarantee updates no matter what.

Any guidance on that first question? Uninstall v3 then push 2.7 or can I
push 2.7 over v3?

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:21 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?
>
>Split update, as in two profiles?
>I make a mirror and let all my clients update from that.
>I definitely reco 2.7 over 3, but you knew that:)


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Backup Software Question

[Jim Majorowicz]

Yes.

-Original Message-
From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Backup Software Question

 


Is a backup made with Backup Assist restorable by NTBackup as well ?

TIA 


GuidoElia
HELPPC

-Messaggio originale-
Da: Jim Majorowicz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inviato: giovedì 3 gennaio 2008 18.59
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Backup Software Question

I added one that I don't see mentioned here very often:  Backup Assist.
This is a software bundle that uses ntbackup, but adds some serious
functionality.  I like it a lot because it can natively handle removable USB
or eSATA drives, and integrates with the reporting function of SBS 2003.
And it's pretty inexpensive...IE well worth it's cost.

Just to note my dog in the fight, we are listed as a reseller...

-Original Message-
From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Backup Software Question

List Members,

Symantec Backup Exec (formerly Veritas) is coming due to be renewed this
month and I'm just not very happy with its performance this last year.
We continually get backup failures on one server stating it has too much
activity to be "snapped" when in fact the server has no activity at all.

In looking back at past posts, there are several choices.

I have setup a poll and would appreciate it if you would take time to answer
a couple of questions for me. Keep in mind we do not have a budget at this
time to purchase more hardware and limited budget for new software.

If a choice is not listed, please type in your choice and submit the poll.
It is limited to the first 100 responders and closes at 5:00pm tomorrow.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

http://www.polldaddy.com/p/200110/

Tom S.
NCBPAC

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Ziots, Edward]

I know about dumpacl, but need it on an automated fashion, and need to
be able to restore the permissions quickly back to a previous version
accordingly. I am usually dealing with complex permissions structures of
TB's of data, so getting things back the way it need to be quick is very
important. 

Z

-Original Message-
From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:29 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server
permissions software question

Used to be a utility called DumpACL, maybe now called DumpSec that may
help... Not sure if it is as 'powerful' as you want but is still good
for
documenting for recovery and audits 

-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
software question


To the list, 

After much angst and nagging, I have been given the go ahead to take a
look
into software that will do the following. For those with experience in
using
software to cover these areas and others, please feel free to chime in
what
has worked well for you and your staffs. 

I need the software to do the following. 

1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the
permissions
and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic and
Security
Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not played with
personally)

2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to
a
SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can
see
this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI, SMS,
MOM,
Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track the
following:
AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level, server permission
changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder level, with a nice
reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive with this) ( Also its
an
internal audit recommendation) 

Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation. 

Z

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date:
1/4/2008
12:05 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date:
1/4/2008
12:05 PM
 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

R: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[HELP_PC]

I don't want to impress you ! I only say that the actual product is much better 
and lighter than Trend and McAfee (that I tested). Good and complete help for 
install and deploy and easy GUI.
I use also Symantec BE System Recovery for imaging and I am satisfied .
They have (in Italy )a localized support by phone and is not bad.
I told here about to actual products and everybody can answer me that I am 
wrong about those products, but not about Symantec history.
Today I have to install for my customers "today's products" not old ones !
 
Cheers
 
GuidoElia
HELPPC
 

  _  

Da: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 17.15
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?




The fact REALLY is that Symantec buys up good software and makes it bad. It has 
happened time and again. No other company has done that since CA in the late 
90's. If you like Symantec, then more power to you, but don't try to defend 
their history of quality because it doesn't exist. The fact that they might 
have finally got their A/V solution right after 3 years and 3 major releases 
doesn't impress me.

 

From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:10 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: R: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 

 

The fact is that some people like to fire on Sym more than to other in-famous 
brands both for hardware or software faults !

 

GuidoElia

HELPPC

 

 

  _  

Da: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.59
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: Re: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 

Not likely from my experience but then I do not like to forgive companies the 
mess up my network after taking my money.

 

Jon

On Jan 4, 2008 10:52 AM, HELP_PC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

And I think that people who really experienced last Symantec Endpoint 
Protection should change a bit their mind about the company and their software 

 

GuidoElia

HELPPC

 

 

  _  

Da: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.46
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?



<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working 
> after version 3. 

And this is better then Symantec? 

Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/ 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it." 
-  P. B. Medawar 








 


 








 


 








 


 

 







 


















~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Tim Vander Kooi]

You can have one profile that does updates from your local mirror, but
if your mirror is unavailable it will fail over to Eset's servers for
updates only. It is covered in the documentation, believe it or not.
TVK

-Original Message-
From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

Split update, as in two profiles?
I make a mirror and let all my clients update from that.
I definitely reco 2.7 over 3, but you knew that:)

jlc

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:51 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

So, Joe, you have me sufficiently nervous that I am going to roll back
to
2.7...I have about 50 clients and only 4 servers deployed on v3 at this
point.  Any gotchas or tips when rolling back? Should we uninstall v3
then
push 2.7 or is it safe to push 2.7 over v3?

And I was able to get the split update profile thing to work on v3 but
not
on 2.7, do you do that on 2.7 or just update everyone from the Internet
and
forego the local mirror altogether?

 - Andy O.

From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

Wish I knew, I just have seen and heard of all sorts of things
happening.
Naturally, my test lan went smooth, so I don't know what circumstances
are.
I really don't know what's improved, so I am not sure the release
provides
any benefits to outweigh the cons.


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Erik Goldoff]

Used to be a utility called DumpACL, maybe now called DumpSec that may
help... Not sure if it is as 'powerful' as you want but is still good for
documenting for recovery and audits 

-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions
software question


To the list, 

After much angst and nagging, I have been given the go ahead to take a look
into software that will do the following. For those with experience in using
software to cover these areas and others, please feel free to chime in what
has worked well for you and your staffs. 

I need the software to do the following. 

1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the permissions
and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic and Security
Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not played with
personally)

2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to a
SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can see
this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI, SMS, MOM,
Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track the following:
AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level, server permission
changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder level, with a nice
reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive with this) ( Also its an
internal audit recommendation) 

Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation. 

Z

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008
12:05 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008
12:05 PM
 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Joseph L. Casale]

Split update, as in two profiles?
I make a mirror and let all my clients update from that.
I definitely reco 2.7 over 3, but you knew that:)

jlc

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:51 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

So, Joe, you have me sufficiently nervous that I am going to roll back to
2.7...I have about 50 clients and only 4 servers deployed on v3 at this
point.  Any gotchas or tips when rolling back? Should we uninstall v3 then
push 2.7 or is it safe to push 2.7 over v3?

And I was able to get the split update profile thing to work on v3 but not
on 2.7, do you do that on 2.7 or just update everyone from the Internet and
forego the local mirror altogether?

 - Andy O.

From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

Wish I knew, I just have seen and heard of all sorts of things happening.
Naturally, my test lan went smooth, so I don't know what circumstances are.
I really don't know what's improved, so I am not sure the release provides
any benefits to outweigh the cons.


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Ziots, Edward]

Symantec=the new CA. 

 

CA= Symantec= Crap 

 

Z

 



From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 

 

The fact REALLY is that Symantec buys up good software and makes it bad. It has 
happened time and again. No other company has done that since CA in the late 
90's. If you like Symantec, then more power to you, but don't try to defend 
their history of quality because it doesn't exist. The fact that they might 
have finally got their A/V solution right after 3 years and 3 major releases 
doesn't impress me.

 

From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:10 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: R: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 

 

The fact is that some people like to fire on Sym more than to other in-famous 
brands both for hardware or software faults !

 

GuidoElia

HELPPC

 

 



Da: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.59
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: Re: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 

Not likely from my experience but then I do not like to forgive companies the 
mess up my network after taking my money.

 

Jon

On Jan 4, 2008 10:52 AM, HELP_PC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

And I think that people who really experienced last Symantec Endpoint 
Protection should change a bit their mind about the company and their software 

 

GuidoElia

HELPPC

 

 



Da: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.46
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?



<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working 
> after version 3. 

And this is better then Symantec? 

Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/ 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it." 
-  P. B. Medawar 











 
 


 











 
 


 











 
 


 

 










 
 


 

 





 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Tim Vander Kooi]

The fact REALLY is that Symantec buys up good software and makes it bad. It has 
happened time and again. No other company has done that since CA in the late 
90's. If you like Symantec, then more power to you, but don't try to defend 
their history of quality because it doesn't exist. The fact that they might 
have finally got their A/V solution right after 3 years and 3 major releases 
doesn't impress me.

 

From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:10 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: R: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 

 

The fact is that some people like to fire on Sym more than to other in-famous 
brands both for hardware or software faults !

 

GuidoElia

HELPPC

 

 



Da: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.59
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: Re: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 

Not likely from my experience but then I do not like to forgive companies the 
mess up my network after taking my money.

 

Jon

On Jan 4, 2008 10:52 AM, HELP_PC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

And I think that people who really experienced last Symantec Endpoint 
Protection should change a bit their mind about the company and their software 

 

GuidoElia

HELPPC

 

 



Da: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.46
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?



<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working 
> after version 3. 

And this is better then Symantec? 

Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/ 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it." 
-  P. B. Medawar 






 


 






 


 






 


 

 





 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: which is more secure? more information

[David Lum]

Laundry = girlfriend

 

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: which is more secure? more information

 

 

Nope Laundry at home, but doing your Laundry in your DMZ does sounds
pretty Drty J 

 

Z

 



From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: which is more secure? more information

 


You do your laundry there too?

On Jan 4, 2008 10:53 AM, Ziots, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I do it with one right now in the same scenario DMZ, contact me offline
and I will give you more information on the details if you like.

Z


-Original Message- 
From: roger rabus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:34 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: which is more secure? more information

 realize now I left out some info.   The internal users will be
creating files that the external users will be retrieving.  Is that
still doable with two servers? 

Roger

On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote:

> More secure against what threat? Some external user guessing a
> username/password? Probably the second option.
>
> But given that Windows Server 2000 is now out of extended support, I 
> don't really have that much confidence in either option.
>
> But another option would be to put the FTP server into the DMZ, and
> create two FTP sites. One is read-only, and can be accessed by 
> anyone. The second is read/write, but you use IP restrictions to
> ensure that only users on your internal network are able to connect
> to it
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
>  
> From: roger rabus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 11:58 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: which is more secure? 
>
> hi everyone,
>
> Please help me determine which is more secure?
>
> 1. a Windows 2000 server set up for read/write Ftp that is in the DMZ
> with only access thru a firewall both to the inside network and the 
> internet. Some users will have read/write while most will have read
> only as defined by windows file security access.
>
> 2. a Windows2000 server setup for read only Ftp access thru the
> firewall.  internal users will place files on the server via a file 
> sharing via a separate network interface to the server. External users
> will only have read only ftp access to files.
>
> Roger Rabus
> Logical Solutions
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ 
> ~   ~

Roger Rabus

Logical Solutions

636 671 5005 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ < http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm
 >  ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ < http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm
 >  ~




-- 
ME2 











 
 


 

 





 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Tim Vander Kooi]

If NAV v.9 being a resource hogging piece of [EMAIL PROTECTED] was Symantec's 
only offense...then I might change my opinion. But there isn't a product that 
they have assimilated (that I can recall) that they haven't pretty much 
destroyed within 2 years. I think I see a pattern here. ;-)

 

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 

 

Not likely from my experience but then I do not like to forgive companies the 
mess up my network after taking my money.

 

Jon

On Jan 4, 2008 10:52 AM, HELP_PC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

And I think that people who really experienced last Symantec Endpoint 
Protection should change a bit their mind about the company and their software 

 

GuidoElia

HELPPC

 

 



Da: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.46
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?



<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working 
> after version 3. 

And this is better then Symantec? 

Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/ 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it." 
-  P. B. Medawar 






 


 






 


 






 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

R: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[HELP_PC]

The fact is that some people like to fire on Sym more than to other in-famous 
brands both for hardware or software faults !
 
GuidoElia
HELPPC
 

  _  

Da: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.59
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: Re: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?



Not likely from my experience but then I do not like to forgive companies the 
mess up my network after taking my money.
 
Jon


On Jan 4, 2008 10:52 AM, HELP_PC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



And I think that people who really experienced last Symantec Endpoint 
Protection should change a bit their mind about the company and their software 
 
GuidoElia
HELPPC
 

  _  

Da: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.46
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?




<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working 
> after version 3. 

And this is better then Symantec? 

Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/ 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it." 
-  P. B. Medawar 

















































~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: which is more secure? more information

[Ziots, Edward]

Nope Laundry at home, but doing your Laundry in your DMZ does sounds
pretty Drty :-) 

 

Z

 



From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: which is more secure? more information

 


You do your laundry there too?

On Jan 4, 2008 10:53 AM, Ziots, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I do it with one right now in the same scenario DMZ, contact me offline
and I will give you more information on the details if you like.

Z


-Original Message- 
From: roger rabus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:34 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: which is more secure? more information

 realize now I left out some info.   The internal users will be
creating files that the external users will be retrieving.  Is that
still doable with two servers? 

Roger

On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote:

> More secure against what threat? Some external user guessing a
> username/password? Probably the second option.
>
> But given that Windows Server 2000 is now out of extended support, I 
> don't really have that much confidence in either option.
>
> But another option would be to put the FTP server into the DMZ, and
> create two FTP sites. One is read-only, and can be accessed by 
> anyone. The second is read/write, but you use IP restrictions to
> ensure that only users on your internal network are able to connect
> to it
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
>  
> From: roger rabus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 11:58 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: which is more secure? 
>
> hi everyone,
>
> Please help me determine which is more secure?
>
> 1. a Windows 2000 server set up for read/write Ftp that is in the DMZ
> with only access thru a firewall both to the inside network and the 
> internet. Some users will have read/write while most will have read
> only as defined by windows file security access.
>
> 2. a Windows2000 server setup for read only Ftp access thru the
> firewall.  internal users will place files on the server via a file 
> sharing via a separate network interface to the server. External users
> will only have read only ftp access to files.
>
> Roger Rabus
> Logical Solutions
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ 
> ~   ~

Roger Rabus

Logical Solutions

636 671 5005 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ < http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm
 >  ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ < http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm
 >  ~




-- 
ME2 






 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Documentation, Restore and snapshoting of Server permissions software question

[Ziots, Edward]

To the list, 

After much angst and nagging, I have been given the go ahead to take a
look into software that will do the following. For those with experience
in using software to cover these areas and others, please feel free to
chime in what has worked well for you and your staffs. 

I need the software to do the following. 

1) Snapshot the NTFS/Share permissions on a server by server basis over
time, to assist in recovery if my helpdesk etc etc steps on the
permissions and causes issues with the servers.  ( I believe Scriptlogic
and Security Explorer and a few others in this realm I have seen but not
played with personally)

2) Eventlog management tools to track, alert, manage and archive logs to
a SQL Database or other remote medium for auditing and compliance. I can
see this with both Agent based and non-agent based deployments. ( GFI,
SMS, MOM, Configuresoft, Netpro, Quest, etc etc?) I am looking to track
the following: AD changes, modifications, down to an attribute level,
server permission changes, additions, deletes at the file and folder
level, with a nice reporting mechanism accordingly, to get proactive
with this) ( Also its an internal audit recommendation) 

Feel free to chime in on the good/bad/ugly of the situation. 

Z

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Cannot write to user home directory

[Eric E Eskam]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/04/2008 09:14:33 AM:

> Not a good sign...
> 
> This machine has a JBOD rather than a RAID.  The machine has been 
> displaying a gray screen for the file system check for the drive in 
> question showing "CHKDSK is verifying file data (stage 4 of 5)..." for 
> about an hour now.

Don't panic!  CHKDSK can take a long time on large volumes with large 
amounts of files/directories.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/storage/getstorfacts.mspx

I was researching this when trying to decide how large to make our volumes 
on our new iSCSI SAN.  Just because you can create a 2 terabyte volume, is 
that really a good thing?  :-)

Oh yeah, if you use software iSCSI initiators, your volumes will never 
autocheck - the iSCSI initiator service isn't loaded yet when the 
autocheck portion of the OS boot happens - you have to manually keep an 
eye on your NTFS volumes with chkntfs.  Score another positive for using 
hardware iSCSI initiator cards, since they do mount the volumes during the 
early parts of the boot process.

Hmm, I just noticed that's an outdated technote, MS now supports software 
boot from an iSCSI SAN.  But the chkdsk stuff is still the same :)

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it."
-  P. B. Medawar
~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: which is more secure? more information

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

You do your laundry there too?

On Jan 4, 2008 10:53 AM, Ziots, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I do it with one right now in the same scenario DMZ, contact me offline
> and I will give you more information on the details if you like.
>
> Z
>
> -Original Message-
> From: roger rabus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:34 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: which is more secure? more information
>
>  realize now I left out some info.   The internal users will be
> creating files that the external users will be retrieving.  Is that
> still doable with two servers?
>
> Roger
>
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote:
>
> > More secure against what threat? Some external user guessing a
> > username/password? Probably the second option.
> >
> > But given that Windows Server 2000 is now out of extended support, I
> > don't really have that much confidence in either option.
> >
> > But another option would be to put the FTP server into the DMZ, and
> > create two FTP sites. One is read-only, and can be accessed by
> > anyone. The second is read/write, but you use IP restrictions to
> > ensure that only users on your internal network are able to connect
> > to it
> >
> > Cheers
> > Ken
> >
> > 
> > From: roger rabus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 11:58 AM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: which is more secure?
> >
> > hi everyone,
> >
> > Please help me determine which is more secure?
> >
> > 1. a Windows 2000 server set up for read/write Ftp that is in the DMZ
> > with only access thru a firewall both to the inside network and the
> > internet. Some users will have read/write while most will have read
> > only as defined by windows file security access.
> >
> > 2. a Windows2000 server setup for read only Ftp access thru the
> > firewall.  internal users will place files on the server via a file
> > sharing via a separate network interface to the server. External users
> > will only have read only ftp access to files.
> >
> > Roger Rabus
> > Logical Solutions
> >
> > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> > ~   ~
>
> Roger Rabus
>
> Logical Solutions
>
> 636 671 5005
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~
>



-- 
ME2

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Jon Harris]

Not likely from my experience but then I do not like to forgive companies
the mess up my network after taking my money.

Jon

On Jan 4, 2008 10:52 AM, HELP_PC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> And I think that people who really experienced last Symantec Endpoint
> Protection should change a bit their mind about the company and their
> software
>
> *GuidoElia*
> *HELPPC*
>
>
>  --
> *Da:* Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Inviato:* venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.46
> *A:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Oggetto:* RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> > DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working
> > after version 3.
>
> And this is better then Symantec?
>
> Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/
>
> Eric Eskam
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any
> position of the U.S. Government
> "The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange
> protein; it rejects it."
> -  P. B. Medawar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Cannot write to user home directory

[RichardMcClary]

Right!

Files were restored to a different machine (RAID 5), and I've just now 
asked for a new pair of disks for the hosed system.

Oh yeah, and users were mapped to the different server...
--
Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
ASPCA Knowledge Management
1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
217-337-9761
http://www.aspca.org


"Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/04/2008 09:54:43 AM:

> JBOD is always a bad idea, just like Software Raid. Again you might have
> more corruption than can be fixed by chkdsk or a failed disk which means
> the entire volume is caputo ::)
> 
> Z
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:15 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> 
> Not a good sign...
> 
> This machine has a JBOD rather than a RAID.  The machine has been 
> displaying a gray screen for the file system check for the drive in 
> question showing "CHKDSK is verifying file data (stage 4 of 5)..." for 
> about an hour now.
> 
> The tape library is now getting ready to restore the backup somewhere...
> --
> Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
> ASPCA Knowledge Management
> 1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
> 217-337-9761
> http://www.aspca.org
> 
> 
> "Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/04/2008 07:12:51 AM:
> 
> > Yep, 
> > 
> > Troubleshooting servers and there nuisances along with the Almighty
> > Chest Cold ( I just got over mine) in the fridgid confines of the
> > datacenter does not make one Sysadmin happy. 
> > 
> > License Logging Service doesn't have anything to do with it, but best
> to
> > just disable that service. 
> > 
> > Defintely do a full chkdsk and the chkntfs and verify you don't have
> > underlying corruption and/or your ntfs volume isn't dirty and needs a
> > cleaning/chkdsking to get it fixed. 
> > 
> > Also check the drivers/firmware on the drives/RAID card after you fix
> > the underlying disk problems and upgrade both ( Usually done with SPAQ
> > and Diskettes, CD on HP boxes)
> > 
> > If still having problems, get a good backup verify you can restore the
> > data back off tape and smoke the partition/disk LUN and re-create it
> and
> > restore the data accordingly. 
> > 
> > 
> > HTH
> > Z
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:06 AM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> > 
> > These look to be promising!
> > 
> > I've been fighting (another) chest cold and was stumbling out of the 
> > center when this problem snagged me (delaying my out-stumble for an
> hour
> > 
> > or so...)
> > 
> > Checking the event logs, I see that license logging service had not
> been
> > 
> > disabled.  I also saw a report of a bad block on the drive containing
> > the 
> > user files.
> > 
> > I've run newly-arrived MS patches and am now re-booting into a file
> > system 
> > check.  If this doesn't work, then I'll look into the backup agent
> snag 
> > and command line utilities.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > --
> > Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
> > ASPCA Knowledge Management
> > 1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
> > 217-337-9761
> > http://www.aspca.org
> > 
> > 
> > "Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 03:32:30 PM:
> > 
> > > Also, 
> > > 
> > > Have you checked for file-system corruption? 
> > > 
> > > Also what does the command line utilities say the permissions are (
> > > cacls, icacls, perms, subinacl.exe?) 
> > > 
> > > Also seen sometimes when backup agents, or AV folds files and
> folders
> > > open on OS, which can cause these type of problems, have you tried
> > > disabling both rebooting and seeing what comes about? 
> > > 
> > > Z
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: James Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:20 PM
> > > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> > > 
> > > Sure sounds like a permissions problem to me . . .
> > > Every time I have seen this, it has been because permissions have
> > gotten
> > > screwed up on a folder (either ntfs or share permissions).  Does the
> > > user have the security tab when they access the properties of the
> > > folder?
> > > 
> > > James Winzenz
> > > Infrastructure Engineer - Security
> > > Pulte Homes Information Services
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Posted At: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:00 PM
> > > Posted To: NTSysadmin
> > > Conversation: Cannot write to user home directory
> > > Subject: Cannot write to user home directory
> > > 
> > > Actually, it seems to be a problem with the whole file system...
> > > 
> > > Win2003Server in Win2003 native env

RE: Cannot write to user home directory

[Ziots, Edward]

JBOD is always a bad idea, just like Software Raid. Again you might have
more corruption than can be fixed by chkdsk or a failed disk which means
the entire volume is caputo ::)

Z

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory

Not a good sign...

This machine has a JBOD rather than a RAID.  The machine has been 
displaying a gray screen for the file system check for the drive in 
question showing "CHKDSK is verifying file data (stage 4 of 5)..." for 
about an hour now.

The tape library is now getting ready to restore the backup somewhere...
--
Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
ASPCA Knowledge Management
1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
217-337-9761
http://www.aspca.org


"Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/04/2008 07:12:51 AM:

> Yep, 
> 
> Troubleshooting servers and there nuisances along with the Almighty
> Chest Cold ( I just got over mine) in the fridgid confines of the
> datacenter does not make one Sysadmin happy. 
> 
> License Logging Service doesn't have anything to do with it, but best
to
> just disable that service. 
> 
> Defintely do a full chkdsk and the chkntfs and verify you don't have
> underlying corruption and/or your ntfs volume isn't dirty and needs a
> cleaning/chkdsking to get it fixed. 
> 
> Also check the drivers/firmware on the drives/RAID card after you fix
> the underlying disk problems and upgrade both ( Usually done with SPAQ
> and Diskettes, CD on HP boxes)
> 
> If still having problems, get a good backup verify you can restore the
> data back off tape and smoke the partition/disk LUN and re-create it
and
> restore the data accordingly. 
> 
> 
> HTH
> Z
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:06 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> 
> These look to be promising!
> 
> I've been fighting (another) chest cold and was stumbling out of the 
> center when this problem snagged me (delaying my out-stumble for an
hour
> 
> or so...)
> 
> Checking the event logs, I see that license logging service had not
been
> 
> disabled.  I also saw a report of a bad block on the drive containing
> the 
> user files.
> 
> I've run newly-arrived MS patches and am now re-booting into a file
> system 
> check.  If this doesn't work, then I'll look into the backup agent
snag 
> and command line utilities.
> 
> Thanks
> --
> Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
> ASPCA Knowledge Management
> 1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
> 217-337-9761
> http://www.aspca.org
> 
> 
> "Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 03:32:30 PM:
> 
> > Also, 
> > 
> > Have you checked for file-system corruption? 
> > 
> > Also what does the command line utilities say the permissions are (
> > cacls, icacls, perms, subinacl.exe?) 
> > 
> > Also seen sometimes when backup agents, or AV folds files and
folders
> > open on OS, which can cause these type of problems, have you tried
> > disabling both rebooting and seeing what comes about? 
> > 
> > Z
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:20 PM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> > 
> > Sure sounds like a permissions problem to me . . .
> > Every time I have seen this, it has been because permissions have
> gotten
> > screwed up on a folder (either ntfs or share permissions).  Does the
> > user have the security tab when they access the properties of the
> > folder?
> > 
> > James Winzenz
> > Infrastructure Engineer - Security
> > Pulte Homes Information Services
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Posted At: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:00 PM
> > Posted To: NTSysadmin
> > Conversation: Cannot write to user home directory
> > Subject: Cannot write to user home directory
> > 
> > Actually, it seems to be a problem with the whole file system...
> > 
> > Win2003Server in Win2003 native environment.
> > 
> > User has a home directory on this server.  It has been set up with
> full 
> > control of files and directories to administrators, "SYSTEM", and
that
> 
> > user.
> > 
> > Nobody can write to a particular user's home directory (including
> folks 
> > who are administrators on both the local machine and the server)
over
> > the 
> > network.  I can log into the server (locally or remote) and copy
files
> 
> > from the user's desktop system.
> > 
> > On a remote login to the server itself, when I try to look at the 
> > properies of directories, I do not get the usual properties tabs.
> > Instead, 
> > I get on saying "General" and one that says "Custom".  Both are
pretty
> 
> > useless!  Wh

RE: which is more secure? more information

[Ziots, Edward]

I do it with one right now in the same scenario DMZ, contact me offline
and I will give you more information on the details if you like. 

Z

-Original Message-
From: roger rabus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:34 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: which is more secure? more information

  realize now I left out some info.   The internal users will be
creating files that the external users will be retrieving.  Is that
still doable with two servers?

Roger

On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote:

> More secure against what threat? Some external user guessing a  
> username/password? Probably the second option.
>
> But given that Windows Server 2000 is now out of extended support, I  
> don't really have that much confidence in either option.
>
> But another option would be to put the FTP server into the DMZ, and  
> create two FTP sites. One is read-only, and can be accessed by  
> anyone. The second is read/write, but you use IP restrictions to  
> ensure that only users on your internal network are able to connect  
> to it
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
> 
> From: roger rabus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 11:58 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: which is more secure?
>
> hi everyone,
>
> Please help me determine which is more secure?
>
> 1. a Windows 2000 server set up for read/write Ftp that is in the DMZ
> with only access thru a firewall both to the inside network and the
> internet. Some users will have read/write while most will have read
> only as defined by windows file security access.
>
> 2. a Windows2000 server setup for read only Ftp access thru the
> firewall.  internal users will place files on the server via a file
> sharing via a separate network interface to the server. External users
> will only have read only ftp access to files.
>
> Roger Rabus
> Logical Solutions
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~

Roger Rabus

Logical Solutions

636 671 5005

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

R: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[HELP_PC]

And I think that people who really experienced last Symantec Endpoint 
Protection should change a bit their mind about the company and their software
 
GuidoElia
HELPPC
 

  _  

Da: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: venerdì 4 gennaio 2008 16.46
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?




<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working
> after version 3. 

And this is better then Symantec? 

Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/ 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it."
-  P. B. Medawar 











~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Joe Heaton]

And that’s why everyone is saying to stay with 2.7 until those issues are 
worked out…

 

Joe Heaton

 

From: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:46 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

 



<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working
> after version 3. 

And this is better then Symantec? 

Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/ 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it."
-  P. B. Medawar 








 


No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 
7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 
11:29 AM
 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Jon Harris]

>From my reading of all this it appears to not happen all the time but when
it does it goes very badly.  One of the reasons I am staying at 2.7 for now.

Jon

On Jan 4, 2008 10:45 AM, Eric E Eskam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> > DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working
> > after version 3.
>
>
> And this is better then Symantec?
>
> Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/
>
> Eric Eskam
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any
> position of the U.S. Government
> "The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange
> protein; it rejects it."
> -  P. B. Medawar
>
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Eric E Eskam]

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 05:48:46 PM:
> DFS, AD Replicaton, Kerberos errors, UNC drive access, all stops working
> after version 3.

And this is better then Symantec?

Sounds like trading one set of issues for another :/

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it."
-  P. B. Medawar

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: WM5 or WM6 ?

[Joe Heaton]

How much sense does this make?  I was told yesterday afternoon that our Verizon 
shop doesn’t have any 700wx available for “loan/eval”.  Not sure why it’s not 
possible to just grab one from the shelf and let us use it for a week or so, 
seeing as we could be replacing 15 or so Moto Qs with this device.  Our 
contract with Verizon is up in October or so, so maybe someone else will win 
the contract…

 

Joe Heaton

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:29 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WM5 or WM6 ?

 

 

The version for our carrier is the XV6800, but it is seemingly difficult to get 
an eval unit from our rep; I still haven’t heard when/if I’m getting the Treo…

 

Joe Heaton

 

From: Eric E Eskam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:50 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WM5 or WM6 ?

 



"Joe Heaton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/02/2008 11:03:33 AM:

> We’re going to be eval’ing a couple of Treo 700wx, 

Make sure you eval the HTC PPC6700 or whatever the latest version is too.  I 
had a PPC6400 and broke the screen, and because of confluence of events Sprint 
replaced it with a Treo 700wx - I hate it.  The screen on the HTC PPC series is 
twice the size of the Treo's and that makes a HUGE difference.  The PPC's also 
have much larger keyboards.  And for the increased usability, they aren't that 
much bigger then the Treo's.  Normally I'm fanatical about physical size of the 
phone, but I would gladly go back to the slightly larger HTC PPC. 

Oh yeah, the phone app in the PPC's kick the Treo's butt too.  Gawd I hate this 
phone 

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it."
-  P. B. Medawar 















 
 


No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 
7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM 

 

 







 


 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 
11:29 AM

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 
7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 
11:29 AM
 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Backup Software Question

[Eric E Eskam]

"Tom Strader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 08:42:46 AM:

> How does NTBackup handle locked files?
> What about Exchange, SQL databases?

On SBS 2003 it uses VSS to snapshot Exchange and SQL and then it backs up 
the snapshots.

I would assume it works the same for straight Server 2003, but I haven't 
done it personally.

My "other" choice was CommVault - never thought I could get excited about 
backup software, but CommVault is a pleasure to use and it's extremely 
flexible.

Eric Eskam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any 
position of the U.S. Government
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange 
protein; it rejects it."
-  P. B. Medawar
~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Nvidia Go FX1400 on laptop

[James Winzenz]

If for some reason the native capability is not working, check out
UltraMon.  I have used this before on my laptop to extend onto an
external LCD monitor (and also have the taskbar extended as well),
should be able to do the opposite if you specify the external monitor as
primary.  It also has a lot of cool features you don't get with the
standard "extend my desktop onto this monitor".

 

James Winzenz

Infrastructure Engineer - Security

Pulte Homes Information Services

 



From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:44 PM
Posted To: NTSysadmin
Conversation: Nvidia Go FX1400 on laptop
Subject: RE: Nvidia Go FX1400 on laptop
  

 

Yeah, that's what I thought!
But I am sure I am selecting it right, my desktop FX4400 works as
expected!

jlc

 

From: Christopher Boggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nvidia Go FX1400 on laptop

 

 

So your option is greyed out in the Windows display properties?  Are you
sure you are selecting the currently non-primary monitor and it's still
greyed out?

 

Weird.

 

Christopher Boggs

Security System Administrator

 Miltec Corporation





office.256-428-1370  

mobile.256-468-0922

fax.256-428-1461

 



From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:59 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nvidia Go FX1400 on laptop

 

 

Yeah, the "make this the primary" is greyed out? Nvidia only until now
didn't provide Go drivers, they left it to the vendor, and the ones they
now provide don't have this version. I will edit the ini's on nvidias
driver and force it through :-) We'll see what happens, I once did this
with success a few months to allow a newer driver build to resolve a
problem...

 

Thanks,

jlc

 

From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Nvidia Go FX1400 on laptop

 


I would think so.  I've done this on a Macintosh.  Depends on the
drivers though, so...

If you are running the raw drivers, see if the manufacturer has a larger
download package that included extra add-ons and utilities. 

On Jan 3, 2008 5:44 PM, Joseph L. Casale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

 

Is it possible to make an LCD connected through the external DVI
connector on a laptop the primary monitor, and span the desktop to the
laptop as the secondary? The driver doesn't seem to let me swap primary
for secondary?

 

Thanks!
jlc

 











 










 
 










 










 
 
 
 





-- 
ME2 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer.  
Thank you.

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~<>

RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

[Andy Ognenoff]

So, Joe, you have me sufficiently nervous that I am going to roll back to
2.7...I have about 50 clients and only 4 servers deployed on v3 at this
point.  Any gotchas or tips when rolling back? Should we uninstall v3 then
push 2.7 or is it safe to push 2.7 over v3?

And I was able to get the split update profile thing to work on v3 but not
on 2.7, do you do that on 2.7 or just update everyone from the Internet and
forego the local mirror altogether?

 - Andy O. 

From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Nod32 v3 or 2.7?

Wish I knew, I just have seen and heard of all sorts of things happening.
Naturally, my test lan went smooth, so I don’t know what circumstances are.
I really don’t know what’s improved, so I am not sure the release provides
any benefits to outweigh the cons.


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: which is more secure? more information

[roger rabus]

 realize now I left out some info.   The internal users will be
creating files that the external users will be retrieving.  Is that
still doable with two servers?

Roger

On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote:

More secure against what threat? Some external user guessing a  
username/password? Probably the second option.


But given that Windows Server 2000 is now out of extended support, I  
don't really have that much confidence in either option.


But another option would be to put the FTP server into the DMZ, and  
create two FTP sites. One is read-only, and can be accessed by  
anyone. The second is read/write, but you use IP restrictions to  
ensure that only users on your internal network are able to connect  
to it


Cheers
Ken


From: roger rabus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 11:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: which is more secure?

hi everyone,

Please help me determine which is more secure?

1. a Windows 2000 server set up for read/write Ftp that is in the DMZ
with only access thru a firewall both to the inside network and the
internet. Some users will have read/write while most will have read
only as defined by windows file security access.

2. a Windows2000 server setup for read only Ftp access thru the
firewall.  internal users will place files on the server via a file
sharing via a separate network interface to the server. External users
will only have read only ftp access to files.

Roger Rabus
Logical Solutions

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


Roger Rabus

Logical Solutions

636 671 5005

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Cannot write to user home directory

[RichardMcClary]

Not a good sign...

This machine has a JBOD rather than a RAID.  The machine has been 
displaying a gray screen for the file system check for the drive in 
question showing "CHKDSK is verifying file data (stage 4 of 5)..." for 
about an hour now.

The tape library is now getting ready to restore the backup somewhere...
--
Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
ASPCA Knowledge Management
1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
217-337-9761
http://www.aspca.org


"Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/04/2008 07:12:51 AM:

> Yep, 
> 
> Troubleshooting servers and there nuisances along with the Almighty
> Chest Cold ( I just got over mine) in the fridgid confines of the
> datacenter does not make one Sysadmin happy. 
> 
> License Logging Service doesn't have anything to do with it, but best to
> just disable that service. 
> 
> Defintely do a full chkdsk and the chkntfs and verify you don't have
> underlying corruption and/or your ntfs volume isn't dirty and needs a
> cleaning/chkdsking to get it fixed. 
> 
> Also check the drivers/firmware on the drives/RAID card after you fix
> the underlying disk problems and upgrade both ( Usually done with SPAQ
> and Diskettes, CD on HP boxes)
> 
> If still having problems, get a good backup verify you can restore the
> data back off tape and smoke the partition/disk LUN and re-create it and
> restore the data accordingly. 
> 
> 
> HTH
> Z
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:06 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> 
> These look to be promising!
> 
> I've been fighting (another) chest cold and was stumbling out of the 
> center when this problem snagged me (delaying my out-stumble for an hour
> 
> or so...)
> 
> Checking the event logs, I see that license logging service had not been
> 
> disabled.  I also saw a report of a bad block on the drive containing
> the 
> user files.
> 
> I've run newly-arrived MS patches and am now re-booting into a file
> system 
> check.  If this doesn't work, then I'll look into the backup agent snag 
> and command line utilities.
> 
> Thanks
> --
> Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
> ASPCA Knowledge Management
> 1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
> 217-337-9761
> http://www.aspca.org
> 
> 
> "Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 03:32:30 PM:
> 
> > Also, 
> > 
> > Have you checked for file-system corruption? 
> > 
> > Also what does the command line utilities say the permissions are (
> > cacls, icacls, perms, subinacl.exe?) 
> > 
> > Also seen sometimes when backup agents, or AV folds files and folders
> > open on OS, which can cause these type of problems, have you tried
> > disabling both rebooting and seeing what comes about? 
> > 
> > Z
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:20 PM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> > 
> > Sure sounds like a permissions problem to me . . .
> > Every time I have seen this, it has been because permissions have
> gotten
> > screwed up on a folder (either ntfs or share permissions).  Does the
> > user have the security tab when they access the properties of the
> > folder?
> > 
> > James Winzenz
> > Infrastructure Engineer - Security
> > Pulte Homes Information Services
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Posted At: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:00 PM
> > Posted To: NTSysadmin
> > Conversation: Cannot write to user home directory
> > Subject: Cannot write to user home directory
> > 
> > Actually, it seems to be a problem with the whole file system...
> > 
> > Win2003Server in Win2003 native environment.
> > 
> > User has a home directory on this server.  It has been set up with
> full 
> > control of files and directories to administrators, "SYSTEM", and that
> 
> > user.
> > 
> > Nobody can write to a particular user's home directory (including
> folks 
> > who are administrators on both the local machine and the server) over
> > the 
> > network.  I can log into the server (locally or remote) and copy files
> 
> > from the user's desktop system.
> > 
> > On a remote login to the server itself, when I try to look at the 
> > properies of directories, I do not get the usual properties tabs.
> > Instead, 
> > I get on saying "General" and one that says "Custom".  Both are pretty
> 
> > useless!  What is missing is "Sharing" and "Security".
> > 
> > Nothing changed as a result of re-booting the server.
> > 
> > What next - hosed?
> > --
> > Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
> > ASPCA Knowledge Management
> > 1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
> > 217-337-9761
> > http://www.aspca.org
> > 
> > 
> > ~ Upgrade to Next Gene

RE: Backup Software Question

[David Lum]

Yep, it creates NT Backup files, actually. It's largely a pretty / user 
friendly front-end to NTBackup.

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 

-Original Message-
From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Backup Software Question

 


Is a backup made with Backup Assist restorable by NTBackup as well ?

TIA 


GuidoElia
HELPPC

-Messaggio originale-
Da: Jim Majorowicz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inviato: giovedì 3 gennaio 2008 18.59
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Backup Software Question

I added one that I don't see mentioned here very often:  Backup Assist.
This is a software bundle that uses ntbackup, but adds some serious 
functionality.  I like it a lot because it can natively handle removable USB or 
eSATA drives, and integrates with the reporting function of SBS 2003.
And it's pretty inexpensive...IE well worth it's cost.

Just to note my dog in the fight, we are listed as a reseller...

-Original Message-
From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Backup Software Question

List Members,

Symantec Backup Exec (formerly Veritas) is coming due to be renewed this month 
and I'm just not very happy with its performance this last year.
We continually get backup failures on one server stating it has too much 
activity to be "snapped" when in fact the server has no activity at all.

In looking back at past posts, there are several choices.

I have setup a poll and would appreciate it if you would take time to answer a 
couple of questions for me. Keep in mind we do not have a budget at this time 
to purchase more hardware and limited budget for new software.

If a choice is not listed, please type in your choice and submit the poll.
It is limited to the first 100 responders and closes at 5:00pm tomorrow.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

http://www.polldaddy.com/p/200110/

Tom S.
NCBPAC

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: MS Virtual Server - VMs don't automatically start

[Jon Harris]

I forgot to add that there are some notes that if you are using that tool
that some settings do not function correctly and you have to make them from
the web interface.  At least those are in my notes.  The tool is easier to
work with on somethings like moving the server from point A to point B but
for other things I use the web interface.

Jon

On Jan 4, 2008 8:16 AM, Jon Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I will not be much help but have you tried using the system account?  Have
> you tried making that setting using the VMCRplus tool?  Since I only have
> one Host for now and I manually patch my servers I have not yet felt the
> need to explore using this.
>
> Jon
>
>  On Jan 4, 2008 8:12 AM, Bob Fronk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >  Running 7 VMs on a MS Virtual server 2005 R2.  Everything runs great
> > except if the Server needs to be restarted due to Windows updates, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have all the VMs setup to "Automatically start" and I have a valid
> > domain account set as the "Run virtual machine under the following user
> > account"
> >
> >
> >
> > The "Action when Virtual Server starts" is set to " Always turn on
> > virtual machine".
> >
> >
> >
> > However, none of the virtual machines start automatically, I have to
> > start them manually.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone have any ideas?
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Fronk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
> > for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should
> > not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions
> > expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent those
> > of the Davis H. Elliot Company . Warning: Although precautions have been
> > taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot
> > accept responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this
> > email or attachments.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: which is more secure?

[Ken Schaefer]

IP addresses can be spoofed. But that's only useful for a single packet payload 
(e.g. opening connections for a DoS attack, or a single packet exploit).

It's not useful for a brute force attack, or uploading warez etc. Why? Because 
the FTP server needs to communicate with the actual end host. And if the end 
host has "spoofed" it's IP address (assuming that all the routers in between 
co-operate with the spoofed "source" address), then the FTP server will send 
back a response to the spoofed address, not the actual address that the 
attacker has.

Whilst address spoofing is definitely an issue, I don't think it's real issue 
here.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2008 12:08 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: which is more secure?


I do like Ken's idea about IP restrictions, but we know even IP's can be
spoofed)

Z

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: which is more secure?

More secure against what threat? Some external user guessing a
username/password? Probably the second option.

But given that Windows Server 2000 is now out of extended support, I
don't really have that much confidence in either option.

But another option would be to put the FTP server into the DMZ, and
create two FTP sites. One is read-only, and can be accessed by anyone.
The second is read/write, but you use IP restrictions to ensure that
only users on your internal network are able to connect to it

Cheers
Ken


From: roger rabus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 11:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: which is more secure?

hi everyone,

Please help me determine which is more secure?

1. a Windows 2000 server set up for read/write Ftp that is in the DMZ
with only access thru a firewall both to the inside network and the
internet. Some users will have read/write while most will have read
only as defined by windows file security access.

2. a Windows2000 server setup for read only Ftp access thru the
firewall.  internal users will place files on the server via a file
sharing via a separate network interface to the server. External users
will only have read only ftp access to files.

Roger Rabus
Logical Solutions

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: MS Virtual Server - VMs don't automatically start

[Jon Harris]

I will not be much help but have you tried using the system account?  Have
you tried making that setting using the VMCRplus tool?  Since I only have
one Host for now and I manually patch my servers I have not yet felt the
need to explore using this.

Jon

On Jan 4, 2008 8:12 AM, Bob Fronk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>  Running 7 VMs on a MS Virtual server 2005 R2.  Everything runs great
> except if the Server needs to be restarted due to Windows updates, etc.
>
>
>
> I have all the VMs setup to "Automatically start" and I have a valid
> domain account set as the "Run virtual machine under the following user
> account"
>
>
>
> The "Action when Virtual Server starts" is set to " Always turn on virtual
> machine".
>
>
>
> However, none of the virtual machines start automatically, I have to start
> them manually.
>
>
>
> Anyone have any ideas?
>
>
>
> Bob Fronk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for
> the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not
> read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed
> in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the
> Davis H. Elliot Company . Warning: Although precautions have been taken to
> make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept
> responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email
> or attachments.
>
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Cannot write to user home directory

[Ziots, Edward]

Yep, 

Troubleshooting servers and there nuisances along with the Almighty
Chest Cold ( I just got over mine) in the fridgid confines of the
datacenter does not make one Sysadmin happy. 

License Logging Service doesn't have anything to do with it, but best to
just disable that service. 

Defintely do a full chkdsk and the chkntfs and verify you don't have
underlying corruption and/or your ntfs volume isn't dirty and needs a
cleaning/chkdsking to get it fixed. 

Also check the drivers/firmware on the drives/RAID card after you fix
the underlying disk problems and upgrade both ( Usually done with SPAQ
and Diskettes, CD on HP boxes)

If still having problems, get a good backup verify you can restore the
data back off tape and smoke the partition/disk LUN and re-create it and
restore the data accordingly. 


HTH
Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:06 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory

These look to be promising!

I've been fighting (another) chest cold and was stumbling out of the 
center when this problem snagged me (delaying my out-stumble for an hour

or so...)

Checking the event logs, I see that license logging service had not been

disabled.  I also saw a report of a bad block on the drive containing
the 
user files.

I've run newly-arrived MS patches and am now re-booting into a file
system 
check.  If this doesn't work, then I'll look into the backup agent snag 
and command line utilities.

Thanks
--
Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
ASPCA Knowledge Management
1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
217-337-9761
http://www.aspca.org


"Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 03:32:30 PM:

> Also, 
> 
> Have you checked for file-system corruption? 
> 
> Also what does the command line utilities say the permissions are (
> cacls, icacls, perms, subinacl.exe?) 
> 
> Also seen sometimes when backup agents, or AV folds files and folders
> open on OS, which can cause these type of problems, have you tried
> disabling both rebooting and seeing what comes about? 
> 
> Z
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: James Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:20 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> 
> Sure sounds like a permissions problem to me . . .
> Every time I have seen this, it has been because permissions have
gotten
> screwed up on a folder (either ntfs or share permissions).  Does the
> user have the security tab when they access the properties of the
> folder?
> 
> James Winzenz
> Infrastructure Engineer - Security
> Pulte Homes Information Services
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:00 PM
> Posted To: NTSysadmin
> Conversation: Cannot write to user home directory
> Subject: Cannot write to user home directory
> 
> Actually, it seems to be a problem with the whole file system...
> 
> Win2003Server in Win2003 native environment.
> 
> User has a home directory on this server.  It has been set up with
full 
> control of files and directories to administrators, "SYSTEM", and that

> user.
> 
> Nobody can write to a particular user's home directory (including
folks 
> who are administrators on both the local machine and the server) over
> the 
> network.  I can log into the server (locally or remote) and copy files

> from the user's desktop system.
> 
> On a remote login to the server itself, when I try to look at the 
> properies of directories, I do not get the usual properties tabs.
> Instead, 
> I get on saying "General" and one that says "Custom".  Both are pretty

> useless!  What is missing is "Sharing" and "Security".
> 
> Nothing changed as a result of re-booting the server.
> 
> What next - hosed?
> --
> Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
> ASPCA Knowledge Management
> 1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
> 217-337-9761
> http://www.aspca.org
> 
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~ 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any
> file attachments from your computer.  Thank you.
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with N

MS Virtual Server - VMs don't automatically start

[Bob Fronk]

Running 7 VMs on a MS Virtual server 2005 R2.  Everything runs great
except if the Server needs to be restarted due to Windows updates, etc.

 

I have all the VMs setup to "Automatically start" and I have a valid
domain account set as the "Run virtual machine under the following user
account"

 

The "Action when Virtual Server starts" is set to " Always turn on
virtual machine".

 

However, none of the virtual machines start automatically, I have to
start them manually.

 

Anyone have any ideas?

 

Bob Fronk

 

 

 




This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Davis H. Elliot 
Company company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no 
viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for 
any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.
~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: which is more secure?

[Ziots, Edward]

I hate to be the devils advocate on this one, but Id be remised in my
duties if I didn't. 

1) Read/Write access to a FTP site without other controls is just
inviting trouble from a Warez, Hacking prespective. I would definitely
look to use a 3rd party Secure FTP/SSH process to run this site and
control upload/download capability very tightly. Even if its behind a
firewall, you might want to put an IDS probe after the firewall
interface and before it hits the FTP server to pick off any exploits or
Obfruscated code being sent to the ftp server in attempt to buffer
overflow the FTP daemon accordingly. 

2) Using a secure FTP process has a lot of avantages over just a regular
IIS/FTP setup. Accounts that are created are not tied into the OS, so
those crackers/hackers can guess all day long if you make the passwords
sufficiently long and complex and its going over SSH/SFTP/FTP over SSL
you have a reasonable level of priacy/confidentially in your
communications to and from this host. Microsoft's implementation vanilla
doesn't give you this, maybe using IPSEC rules to encryption the traffic
back and forth from the FTP server but that is a pain to admin, and
upkeep. 

I do like Ken's idea about IP restrictions, but we know even IP's can be
spoofed) 

Z

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: which is more secure?

More secure against what threat? Some external user guessing a
username/password? Probably the second option.

But given that Windows Server 2000 is now out of extended support, I
don't really have that much confidence in either option.

But another option would be to put the FTP server into the DMZ, and
create two FTP sites. One is read-only, and can be accessed by anyone.
The second is read/write, but you use IP restrictions to ensure that
only users on your internal network are able to connect to it

Cheers
Ken


From: roger rabus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 11:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: which is more secure?

hi everyone,

Please help me determine which is more secure?

1. a Windows 2000 server set up for read/write Ftp that is in the DMZ
with only access thru a firewall both to the inside network and the
internet. Some users will have read/write while most will have read
only as defined by windows file security access.

2. a Windows2000 server setup for read only Ftp access thru the
firewall.  internal users will place files on the server via a file
sharing via a separate network interface to the server. External users
will only have read only ftp access to files.

Roger Rabus
Logical Solutions

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Cannot write to user home directory

[RichardMcClary]

These look to be promising!

I've been fighting (another) chest cold and was stumbling out of the 
center when this problem snagged me (delaying my out-stumble for an hour 
or so...)

Checking the event logs, I see that license logging service had not been 
disabled.  I also saw a report of a bad block on the drive containing the 
user files.

I've run newly-arrived MS patches and am now re-booting into a file system 
check.  If this doesn't work, then I'll look into the backup agent snag 
and command line utilities.

Thanks
--
Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
ASPCA Knowledge Management
1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
217-337-9761
http://www.aspca.org


"Ziots, Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2008 03:32:30 PM:

> Also, 
> 
> Have you checked for file-system corruption? 
> 
> Also what does the command line utilities say the permissions are (
> cacls, icacls, perms, subinacl.exe?) 
> 
> Also seen sometimes when backup agents, or AV folds files and folders
> open on OS, which can cause these type of problems, have you tried
> disabling both rebooting and seeing what comes about? 
> 
> Z
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: James Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:20 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Cannot write to user home directory
> 
> Sure sounds like a permissions problem to me . . .
> Every time I have seen this, it has been because permissions have gotten
> screwed up on a folder (either ntfs or share permissions).  Does the
> user have the security tab when they access the properties of the
> folder?
> 
> James Winzenz
> Infrastructure Engineer - Security
> Pulte Homes Information Services
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:00 PM
> Posted To: NTSysadmin
> Conversation: Cannot write to user home directory
> Subject: Cannot write to user home directory
> 
> Actually, it seems to be a problem with the whole file system...
> 
> Win2003Server in Win2003 native environment.
> 
> User has a home directory on this server.  It has been set up with full 
> control of files and directories to administrators, "SYSTEM", and that 
> user.
> 
> Nobody can write to a particular user's home directory (including folks 
> who are administrators on both the local machine and the server) over
> the 
> network.  I can log into the server (locally or remote) and copy files 
> from the user's desktop system.
> 
> On a remote login to the server itself, when I try to look at the 
> properies of directories, I do not get the usual properties tabs.
> Instead, 
> I get on saying "General" and one that says "Custom".  Both are pretty 
> useless!  What is missing is "Sharing" and "Security".
> 
> Nothing changed as a result of re-booting the server.
> 
> What next - hosed?
> --
> Richard McClary, Systems Administrator
> ASPCA Knowledge Management
> 1717 S Philo Rd, Ste 36, Urbana, IL  61802
> 217-337-9761
> http://www.aspca.org
> 
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~ 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any
> file attachments from your computer.  Thank you.
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~