Re: Scheduling NTBackup to mapped drive

  • From: Jared Johnson <jaredsjazz@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "\[ExchangeList\]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:25:52 -0700 (PDT)

You know, you're right. Thanks for pointing this out.


This is my last email on this issue. 

For a moment there, I had forgotten this was an
Exchange only forum.




--- Jonathan Jesse <jjesse@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> http://www.MSExchange.org/
> 
> Holy crap I'm sick of this discussion.  I signed up
> for this for MS
> Exchange talk not people trying to prove they are
> better systems
> administrators.  So can I unsubscribe and someone
> send me message when
> this list is back to dealing with Exchange related
> issues and not
> someone trying to bash someone else?
> 
> Jonathan Jesse
> Network+, Linux+, A+
> MCSA
> Network Specialist
> Founders Trust Personal Bank
>  
> This page and any accompanying documents contain
> confidential
> information intended for a specific individual and
> purpose.  If you are
> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution, or use of the information
> contained herein
> (including any reliance thereon) is strictly
> prohibited.  If you
> received this transmission in error, please
> immediately contact the
> sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
> whether in electronic
> or hard copy format.  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jared Johnson [mailto:jaredsjazz@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 4:21 PM
> To: [ExchangeList]
> Subject: [exchangelist] Re: Scheduling NTBackup to
> mapped drive
> 
> http://www.MSExchange.org/
> 
> Children, be nice. I feel like your daddy here
> youngster.
> 
> You come across as a newbie, but that'd doesn't mean
> you are. It's just that your statements are in
> beginner mode.
> 
> Of course one can't log onto a server under "Guest."
> My 15 year daughter knows that. I'm talking Servers
> AND workstations/laptops. Or do you ONLY believe
> that
> security is at the server level?? Again, a newbie
> assumption. My daughter also knows ANY admin can
> unlock a locked computer. So, again, what's your
> point?? If you leave it logged off, then it can be
> logged in by ANYONE on the domain if the GPO isn't
> set
> exactly correct. If it's locked by an admin, then
> ONLY
> and admin can unlock it. 
> 
> Again, this is basics here Mr. 13 years of
> experience,
> (experience in desktop support??)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Tony Anderson <tandersn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > http://www.MSExchange.org/
> > 
> > Jared, from the tone of your statements it sounds
> > like you are the one who
> > is a "new admin" and "younger". You sound like
> some
> > punk on a warez list
> > "windoz rulez, linux suks!@" without any
> foundations
> > for your arguments. How
> > is it more secure to lock it vs loggin off? Answer
> > the F#$@ing question?
> > 
> > I work in the "Paul G Allen center for computer
> > science", I live in Seattle,
> > many of our faculty members work at MS, and many
> of
> > my friends do too. None
> > of them have ever said that it was policy to
> 'leave
> > all servers locked'. Yes
> > you must eaither LOCK or LOG OFF, obviously you
> > can't leave on logged on.
> > 
> > I am definately not a new admin, I have been doing
> > this for 13 years. Your
> > comments are unfounded, and unsupported. Any idiot
> > knows that an
> > administrator can unlock a locked computer. Any
> > idiot knows that guest and
> > even regular user accounts can't log on to a
> server
> > locally.
> > 
> > What kind of exchange admin has a @yahoo account
> > anyway?
> > 
> > Tony Anderson
> > UW CSE
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Jared Johnson" <jaredsjazz@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 12:46 PM
> > Subject: [exchangelist] Re: Scheduling NTBackup to
> > mapped drive
> > 
> > 
> > > http://www.MSExchange.org/
> > >
> > > Easy and expected replies to all.
> > >
> > > You just missed the point, as all new admins do.
> > >
> > > The point is: It's obviously LESS secure leaving
> > the
> > > computer logged off, than actually locking it.
> > >
> > > I mean, DUH
> > >
> > > --- Tony Anderson <tandersn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.MSExchange.org/
> > > >
> > > > Security documents might say "lock your
> computer
> > > > when you leave"
> > > > but they mean that as opposed to leaving it
> > logged
> > > > on. (not opposed to
> > > > logging off)
> > > >
> > > > Your statements are incorrect:
> > > > If you say that locking the computer prevents
> > > > someone from logging on as
> > > > 'Administrator' (presuming it wasn't renamed),
> > that
> > > > is wrong. An
> > > > administrator could unlock a locked computer.
> A
> > > > 'GUEST' could not log into a
> > > > server locally anyway, against local policy.
> > Same
> > > > with Aspnet, or IIS
> > > > accounts, they aren't allowed to log on
> locally.
> > (by
> > > > default!)
> > > >
> > > > Besides, if you have a hacker in your server
> > room,
> > > > he wouldn't need to log
> > > > on, he could boot with a bartPE CD or a Linux
> > boot
> > > > floppy (to change the
> > > > admin password
> > > > http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd/) and
> > change
> > > > the
> > > > admin password or do whatever he wanted. AND
> > EVEN IF
> > > > your server happens to
> > > > be a domain controller, you can still change
> the
> > > > local admin password and
> > > > boot up in 'active directory recovery mode'
> and
> > use
> > > > the local password.
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > > > Think about it: WHY would you give a hacker
> > more
> > > > > opportunities to log in to various known
> > accounts,
> > > > > i.e., GUEST (because of these newbies don't
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


Other related posts: