RE: Confidential Attributes (was RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was this DL......)

2005-07-17 Thread Sakari Kouti
Yes, exactly as joe wrote, this was a terminology thing. In my language, the base schema includes all the classes and attributes that ship with the OS, and in ~Eric's language, the base schema includes only those that are specifically marked as Category 1 (to have several protections). And

RE: Confidential Attributes (was RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was this DL......)

2005-07-13 Thread joe
I think it is a terminology thing. I would guess that Sakari is considering anything shipped in the base product is considered base schema. Of course your definition should match perfectly because the underlying code should be that it tests that flag and if it matches it won't allow the update.

RE: Confidential Attributes (was RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was this DL......)

2005-07-12 Thread Sakari Kouti
Hi Brett and ~Eric, Thanks for your comments on my confidential attribute post. Now I solved, how to set the confidentiality in a way where unnecessary permissions are not granted. Brett wrote: A) Small note, 0xF is 15 decimal and is equivalent to 4 bits set (0b) Thanks for catching

RE: Confidential Attributes (was RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was this DL......)

2005-07-12 Thread Eric Fleischman
~Eric wrote: We actually block all base schema elements if I remember correctly. No you don't. Of the 1070 base schema attributes, you only block the 1007 ones that are marked as category 1. The remaining 63 attributes, such as msDS-ExternalKey, are not marked and therefore don't have this

RE: Confidential Attributes (was RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was this DL......)

2005-07-12 Thread Eric Fleischman
For clarity, this is the flag I'm making reference to: 1 systemFlags: 0x10 = ( FLAG_SCHEMA_BASE_OBJECT ); If that is set on a schema element, my contention is that on an SP1 DC it should not allow you to set the confidential bit. Show me a counterexample please. ~Eric -Original

Confidential Attributes (was RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was this DL......)

2005-07-10 Thread Sakari Kouti
About confidential attributes in SP1: When you set an attribute to be confidential, mere read permission is no longer enough for you to see the attribute value. HOW TO ENABLE - Select the attribute to be set as confidential. Category 1 attributes are not possible to select, which rules most

Re: Confidential Attributes (was RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was this DL......)

2005-07-10 Thread Brett Shirley
First off I don't really know security, so I'm like 43% confident in the accuracy of what I'm about to say ... Two things: A) Small note, 0xF is 15 decimal and is equivalent to 4 bits set (0b), you either meant 0x10 (16 decimal) or 0x8 (8 decimal) probably. Really you should understand

RE: Confidential Attributes (was RE: [ActiveDir] Who was asking for a list of SP1 changes? I think it was this DL......)

2005-07-10 Thread Eric Fleischman
Sadly, a misstep on the part of our friendly garage door operator. use the ldp.exe from the %windir%\ADAM directory The LDP required for this is the LDP in R2's ADAM, not in the currently shipping one. Sorry. We can send this to you if you need it now, or just fetch it out of the R2 beta