You might try this:

Using the Checked Netlogon.dll to Track Account Lockouts (Q189541)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q189541

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: NT4 Account keeps getting locked out!
> 
> 
> 
> Network info: 
> 
> NT 4 server network with W2KPro clients.   
> 
> 
> Situation: 
> 
> We have a user that keeps getting their NT account locked out 
> for reasons that we are not yet aware.  Unable to get much 
> info from Event Viewer on NT4 servers or W2KPro client.  
> Don't know if this is being done by someone intentionally 
> (somewhere on the network or from the client's computer) just 
> to give us a hard time, or a rouge program somewhere on the 
> network or client's computer trying to logon as that 
> user.  At this time, we are not ruling anyone out, everyone 
> is suspect.  We have replaced the client's computer (not 
> totally, user copied shortcuts and some files back to the new 
> desktop...I know, if it was up to me they would not have been 
> allowed to do this, but it's not up to me) and the account is 
> still getting locked out.  We are in the process of creating 
> a new NT account for this user and see if it still occurs. 
> 
> 
> Bottom Line: 
> 
> We need to find out what is causing this account to get 
> locked out and prevent it from happening again. 
> 
> 
> Some thoughts: 
> 
> Is there third party software that will be able to determine 
> what is causing this account to get locked out?  Some sort of 
> sniffing program on the server or the client to find out what 
> program is trying to logon with this account and from where? 
> 
> If this is a user doing this intentionally, what are they 
> doing and from where?  Are they trying to connect remotely to 
> the client's registry, or to a share on the 
> client computer? 
> 
> Is there third party software that can help? 
> 
> Any suggestions/recommendations welcome. 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> Jack
> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to