search for: fullcontrol

...tors Group  : NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM Access : CREATOR OWNER Allow  268435456          NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users Allow  -1610612736          NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users Allow  ReadAndExecute, Synchronize          NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM Allow  268435456          NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM Allow  FullControl          BUILTIN\Administrators Allow  268435456          BUILTIN\Administrators Allow  Write, ReadAndExecute, ChangePermissions, TakeOwnership, Synchronize          BUILTIN\Server Operators Allow  ReadAndExecute, Synchronize Audit  : Sddl   : O:BAG:SYD:PAI(A;OICIIO;GA;;;CO)(A;OICIIO;GXGR;;;AU...

...\Policies\'{5FD30AA2-B678-422C-9C0E-4E270488EDE4}' | Format-List NOTE: The above is all one line. Which leads to this output: Path :sysvol\DOMAIN.LOCAL\Policies\{5FD30AA2-B678-422C-9C0E-4E270488EDE4} Owner : HOME\Domain Admins Group : HOME\Domain Admins Access : CREATOR OWNER Allow FullControl NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS Allow ReadAndExecute, Synchronize NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users Allow ReadAndExecute, Synchronize NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM Allow FullControl HOME\Domain Admins Allow FullControl HOME\Enterprise Admins Allow FullControl Audit : Sddl : O:DAG:DAD:PAI...

...t; Path   : > > > Microsoft.PowerShell.Core\FileSystem::C:\Windows\SYSVOL\domain\Policies\{E > DC26216-625D-42D7-8443-9003D427DEF5} > > > > Owner  : ROTTERDAM\Domain Admins > > > > Group  : ROTTERDAM\Domain Admins > > > > Access : CREATOR OWNER Allow  FullControl > > > >          NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS Allow > > ReadAndExecute, Synchronize > > > >          NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users Allow  ReadAndExecute, > > Synchronize > > > >          NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM Allow  FullControl > &gt...

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:26:03 -0800 Kris Lou via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hang on, can you explain this a little further? I thought that Domain > Admins was issued gidNumber 512 by default. In addition, sysvolreset > is not recommended to fix potential SysVol replication problems with > GPO perms? > No Domain Admins doesn't get gidNumber 512 by default,

...s via samba using the vfs acl_xattr to store acls in extended attributes. It works fine with Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. I'm currently testing 18.04 and have a weird (but reproducable) ACL behaviour: I grant two users a and user b full access on a folder from a windows client. (Share permissions are fullcontrol for everyone). If the folder is owned by user A, user B can change into it, but is not allowed to create files or folders. He is however allowed to delete files and folders. This is only on ocfs2 formated volumes, on ext4 or cephfs ACLs work as expected. Anybody ran into the same issue and has...

...-- 1 poyner pvt-poyner 0 Feb 19 17:32 poynerFile drwxrws--- 2 root pvt-poyner 2 Feb 19 19:30 rootPoynerDir On the windows side using powershell get-acl get-acl .\poynerDir\ Path Owner Access ---- ----- ------ poynerDir O:S-1-22-1-17907 S-1-22-1-17907 Allow FullControl... and get-acl .\rootPoynerDir\ get-acl : Attempted to perform an unauthorized operation. This is very similar to bug 12719 which was closed with advice to use winbindd. https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12719 So is winbindd now the only option for resolving UID and GID? Is idmap_ns...

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens > Rowland penny via samba > Verzonden: donderdag 4 juli 2019 16:05 .... > > > Here it is in big letters: > > DO NOT TOUCH THE 'SHARE' TAB ON WINDOWS, THERE IS NO NEED! That all depends on the setup and if you know that your doing, there is no problem with changing

...> why bother ? If it hits security i alway think about it. because im obligated todo so. ( due my job ) And .. well, that depends also, some might want to use "authenticated user" and not "domain users" and/or not Everyone for example. I can't just say, "Everyone/FullControl" is fine, no, it really depends on what the standards of the user/company are. Yes, its fine to start with, so you know what your doing and start learning the 2 acls. (share/security) > From what you saying, if you remove 'everyone' from the share tab, you must replace it with ...

...ing. The one effect I have observed is that if go into ServerManager and modify the "Permissions" on the soon-to-be-deleted, newly-created, share, then the delete/change-path works ok and there is no error message in the samba log file. The Permissions are initially set to Everyone-->FullControl. I can eliminate the error by either adding another permission settings or simply deleting the default Everyone setting, saving it, and then recreating the exact same setting. The actual error message come from the following section in the source: rpc_server/srv_srvsvc_nt.c static BOOL delete_sh...

...quot;Michael Giagnocavo" <mgg-digium@atrevido.net> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] dtmfmode and IAX protocol To: "'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'" <asterisk-users@lists.digium.com> Message-ID: <A6B3F6B9F0204802BBCF10F6854EC.MAI@colo901.fullcontrol.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Exactly. (I was hoping he'd come to his own conclusions.) So... if the Sipura does not do IAX, then it's quite possible that you're not doing IAX on the Sipura. Which means the whole "dtmfmode and IAX protocol" is...