[THIN] Re: regedit /s won't run despite GPO setting
- From: Steve Snyder <kwajalein@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:26:07 +1200
Hey Jeremy,
thanks for checking that for me.
krap - yep, they had access to the reg file and to regedit in the wow64
folder, but not to regedit in the windows folder - that was it. we have a
few overly-zealous security settings that our customer likess to implement.
before I read this I got around it by flexing out the reg keys I wanted and
just sucking them back in at logon - works
thanks!
-steve
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Jeremy Saunders <
Jeremy.Saunders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
>
>
> It runs as expected for me. Are you sure the “access denied” error isn’t
> because the user account does not have execute rights for the .reg file?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy.
>
>
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Snyder
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:42 AM
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] regedit /s won't run despite GPO setting
>
>
>
> w2k3 r2 servers with sp/2
>
> Despite the GPO setting of prevent access to registry tools but allow
> regedit to run silently (gpo confirmed by checking user's registy hive -
> disableregistrytools is set to 1) regedit /s still won't run; access is
> denied.
>
> M$ KB 831787 covers it with a hotfix for SP1, sp2 is supposed to be fixed.
>
> anyone run into this and/or have a workaround?
> ------------------------------
> *Confidentiality and Privilege Notice
> *This document is intended solely for the named addressee. The
> information contained in the pages is confidential and contains legally
> privileged information. If you are not the addressee indicated in this
> message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may
> not copy or deliver this message to anyone, and you should destroy this
> message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Confidentiality and
> legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to
> you.
> ------------------------------
>
Other related posts:
