[gptalk] Re: local security policy & local group policy

  • From: daniel <rpo8373@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gptalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:50:08 +1000

thanks darren.

On 19/01/2009, Darren Mar-Elia <darren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Daniel-
>
> Answers inline below…
>
>
>
> *From:* gptalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gptalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *daniel
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 18, 2009 4:40 PM
> *To:* gptalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gptalk] Re: local security policy & local group policy
>
>
>
> thanks darren.
>
>
>
> so if i'm understanding correctly:
>
>
>
>  - the local security policy is a subset of the security section of the
> local gpo
>
> YES
>
>  - the local security policy is stored in a database, not a gpo file? where
> is the db stored exactly?
>
> For the most part, stored in the local SAM (Security Accounts Manager)
> database
>
>  - settings defined in the local security policy can't be viewed/exported
> using gpmc? only using secedit?
>
> Not directly, correct. Secedit is your best bet for this.
>
>
>
> daniel.
>
>
>
> On 16/01/2009, *Darren Mar-Elia* <darren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Daniel-
>
> If you are talking about the Local Security Policy shortcut that you see in
> Administrative Tools, then that is simply an MMC snap-in tool focused on the
> security portion of the local GPO. So you are essentially looking at a
> subset of the Local GPO. That being said, security policy on the local GPO
> is made against the live system, instead of being stored in settings files
> like it is for other local GPO settings. That makes it somewhat special and
> often troublesome to manage.
>
>
>
> Darren
>
>
>
> *From:* gptalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gptalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *daniel
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:02 PM
> *To:* gptalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gptalk] local security policy & local group policy
>
>
>
> hi all,
>
>
>
> simple question.
>
>
>
> what is the difference between the local security policy and the local
> group policy?
>
>
>
> daniel.
>
>
>

Other related posts: