<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:pingback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/pingback/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Tech Seige</title>
    <link>http://www.patrickhynds.com/</link>
    <description>Technology vs. Life</description>
    <copyright>DTS</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:29:29 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>newtelligence dasBlog 1.7.5016.2</generator>
    <managingEditor>patrick@dtsnh.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>patrick@dtsnh.com</webMaster>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.patrickhynds.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://www.patrickhynds.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27</pingback:target>
      <wfw:comment>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickhynds.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I was recently asked how to cost effectively
   do backup and Disaster Recovery (DR) for a 50 or so person organization. 
   <p>
      Here is what I have found to be a pretty good way to go that won't break the bank. 
   </p><p>
      For an organization this size I use Backup Assist (http://www.backupassist.com). It
      leverages Windows Backup and has agents for Exchange and SQL. 
   </p><p>
      I then break things into three categories and treat each slightly differently. 
   </p><p>
      Level 1<br />
      The things you call critical such as active email, source code, CRM, financial data,
      etc. 
      <br />
      This stuff gets backed up daily and depending on my level of paranoia (how screwed
      we are if we lose X days) I copy it offsite either to an alternate office or if none
      exists (your scenario) to either a hosted server at a datacenter somewhere (max on
      the disk and bandwidth and min on all else which is much less than you $750 per month)
      or to a server connected via VPN to the company principle's house (poor man's hosted
      server). 
   </p><p>
      Level 2<br />
      The things that change often, but just aren't level 1 such as home directories, business
      shares and other data. 
      <br />
      Data in this category gets weekly backups and usually gets posted monthly to a large
      USB drive which gets rotated with its twin monthly. The drive with the current data
      is brought offsite for storage (again maybe to the company principal's house or maybe
      a safe deposit box). When the new drive is delivered the old one comes back to be
      used for the following month's backup. 
   </p><p>
      Level 3<br />
      These are the unchanging files like images, email archives and stuff. 
      <br />
      You can either burn these to optical media (if you do muliple copies with one going
      to the company principal's house(s) and a copy to the safety deposit box if you got
      one) or you can lump this onto the USB drive shuffle. 
   </p><p>
      Hope this helps those who might be looking for this kind of insight.<img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27" /></p></body>
      <title>Advice for Small Org Backup on a Budget</title>
      <guid>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27</guid>
      <link>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:29:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>I was recently asked how to cost effectively do backup and Disaster Recovery (DR) for a 50 or so person organization.
&lt;p&gt;
   Here is what I have found to be a pretty good way to go that won't break the bank. 
&lt;p&gt;
   For an organization this size I use Backup Assist (http://www.backupassist.com). It
   leverages Windows Backup and has agents for Exchange and SQL. 
&lt;p&gt;
   I then break things into three categories and treat each slightly differently. 
&lt;p&gt;
   Level 1&lt;br&gt;
   The things you call critical such as active email, source code, CRM, financial data,
   etc. 
   &lt;br&gt;
   This stuff gets backed up daily and depending on my level of paranoia (how screwed
   we are if we lose X days) I copy it offsite either to an alternate office or if none
   exists (your scenario) to either a hosted server at a datacenter somewhere (max on
   the disk and bandwidth and min on all else which is much less than you $750 per month)
   or to a server connected via VPN to the company principle's house (poor man's hosted
   server). 
&lt;p&gt;
   Level 2&lt;br&gt;
   The things that change often, but just aren't level 1 such as home directories, business
   shares and other data. 
   &lt;br&gt;
   Data in this category gets weekly backups and usually gets posted monthly to a large
   USB drive which gets rotated with its twin monthly. The drive with the current data
   is brought offsite for storage (again maybe to the company principal's house or maybe
   a safe deposit box). When the new drive is delivered the old one comes back to be
   used for the following month's backup. 
&lt;p&gt;
   Level 3&lt;br&gt;
   These are the unchanging files like images, email archives and stuff. 
   &lt;br&gt;
   You can either burn these to optical media (if you do muliple copies with one going
   to the company principal's house(s) and a copy to the safety deposit box if you got
   one) or you can lump this onto the USB drive shuffle. 
&lt;p&gt;
   Hope this helps those who might be looking for this kind of insight.&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27"&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=8a9fd130-69f1-4912-95bd-dd65fd57bd27</comments>
      <category>Network</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.patrickhynds.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://www.patrickhynds.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779</pingback:target>
      <wfw:comment>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickhynds.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">StrangeLoop has finally announced their
   AppScaler device!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.campbellassociates.ca/blog/PermaLink,guid,1ee1c4cd-fa2f-4934-91d8-7eba7c7cbcb6.aspx">Richard
   Campbell</a> told me about his involvement in StrangeLoop a while ago and I have been
   dying to tell people about it, but until now it has been confidential.<br /><br />
   Basically the AppScaler takes a web farms major headaches and lifts them into the
   loadbalancer and out of the way of your developers.  It really is a cool strategy
   because it gives sites real performance gains over hosting Session State on a state
   server or in a database along with a whole host of other performance enhancing and
   bandwidth saving features.<br /><br />
   Check out the recent <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/includes/ads-pre.html">article
   at NetWorkWorld.com</a> about it.<img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779" /></body>
      <title>Big boost for ASP.Net scalability</title>
      <guid>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779</guid>
      <link>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 00:24:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>StrangeLoop has finally announced their AppScaler device!&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.campbellassociates.ca/blog/PermaLink,guid,1ee1c4cd-fa2f-4934-91d8-7eba7c7cbcb6.aspx"&gt;Richard
Campbell&lt;/a&gt; told me about his involvement in StrangeLoop a while ago and I have been
dying to tell people about it, but until now it has been confidential.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Basically the AppScaler takes a web farms major headaches and lifts them into the
loadbalancer and out of the way of your developers.&amp;nbsp; It really is a cool strategy
because it gives sites real performance gains over hosting Session State on a state
server or in a database along with a whole host of other performance enhancing and
bandwidth saving features.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Check out the recent &lt;a href="http://www.networkworld.com/includes/ads-pre.html"&gt;article
at NetWorkWorld.com&lt;/a&gt; about it.&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779"&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=5e0ac609-67ec-4c1a-86ad-f72260003779</comments>
      <category>Development</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.patrickhynds.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://www.patrickhynds.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7</pingback:target>
      <wfw:comment>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickhynds.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
      The topic of the AT command and the command prompt came up on an internal list I am
      on with Microsoft the jist of which was, "How do I securely turn this junk off".<br /><br />
      The answer is that to some degree the command prompt and especially when coupled with
      the Task Scheduler is a security hole that is closable, but not trivially. 
      You can patch it using things like this <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/93465.mspx?mfr=true">http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/93465.mspx?mfr=true</a><br />
      and you if you really want to wipe out the user's option you should reset the task
      scheduler service to use a low / no priv account and disable it (I am paranoid, but
      I have my reasons). The problem is that the perspective of most that come up against
      this is that you shouldn't have to do this, but the reality is that you do.<br /><br />
      For a scary look at why simply taking the RUN command off the Start menu is not enough
      try the following:<br />
      Open up "Help and Support" from the Start menu and seach for "command".  
      <br />
      Select the entry that describes how to "Test a TCP/IP configuration using the ping
      command"<br />
      You will see that there is a link that will open up a command prompt (it doesn't run
      as System, but it runs).  
      <br />
      That is the XP version.  
      <br /><br />
      The Windows 2003 Server one takes more searching, but it is there.<br /><br />
      The issue is not that the functionality exists, we all want functionality. 
      The problem is when it is hard (or impossible) to shut something off effectively it
      is maddening and often leaves people dismayed.<br /><br />
      Time for an analogy:<br />
      I have doors on my house that I leave unlocked all the time.  The dogs and other
      things in the house keep it secure (if you know me then you know what I mean), but
      if I wanted to secure those doors and found that I could lock them, but the manufacturer
      set them up so that the hinges were on the outside and manipulatable by an intruder
      then I would be unhappy.  Most security outrage and dismay comes from features
      that just didn't take security into consideration for the times when I don't want
      the user to do anything except what the user is told they can do.<br />
       <br />
      This will always be an arms race.  If one of our <a href="http://www.cyberspacesamurai.com">professional
      security gurus such as Duane Laflotte</a> wants to get in and has physical access
      to a workstation or server then he can get in, but there is a point where I will say,
      yes I accept that there are some things I can't defend against.  If you use a
      tank to blow in my front door, I won't moan to the manufacturer about them not being
      tank proof, that is what the mines are for ;)<br />
       <br />
      Is Vista the solution to all security problems?  I doubt it.  I expect that
      there will be improvement based on features I already know are in the most recent
      builds, but I won't judge the security of Vista until after it ships (and won't pay
      all that much attention to it until then either) since the devil is in the details
      and the truth is in the final bits.  Submarines either leak or they don't. 
      The OS will be judged in much the same way in regards to security. 
      <br /><br />
      Ultimately information is power.  Nowhere is that more true than in the realm
      of security.  I suggest that you learn all you can and I will do what I can to
      help.
   </p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7" />
      </body>
      <title>Command Prompts and other security nightmares</title>
      <guid>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7</guid>
      <link>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:07:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
   The topic of the AT command and the command prompt came up on an internal list I am
   on with Microsoft the jist of which was, "How do I securely turn this junk off".&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   The answer is that to some degree the command prompt and especially when coupled with
   the Task Scheduler&amp;nbsp;is a security hole that is closable, but not trivially.&amp;nbsp;
   You can patch it using things like this &lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/93465.mspx?mfr=true"&gt;http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/93465.mspx?mfr=true&lt;/a&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   and you if you really want to wipe out the user's option you should reset the task
   scheduler service to use a low / no priv account and disable it (I am paranoid, but
   I have my reasons). The problem is that the perspective of most that come up against
   this is that you shouldn't have to do this, but the reality is that you do.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   For a scary look at why simply taking the RUN command off the Start menu is not enough
   try the following:&lt;br&gt;
   Open up "Help and Support" from the Start menu and seach for "command".&amp;nbsp; 
   &lt;br&gt;
   Select the entry that describes how to "Test a TCP/IP configuration using the ping
   command"&lt;br&gt;
   You will see that there is a link that will open up a command prompt (it doesn't run
   as System, but it runs).&amp;nbsp; 
   &lt;br&gt;
   That is the XP version.&amp;nbsp; 
   &lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   The Windows 2003 Server one takes more searching, but it is there.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   The issue is not&amp;nbsp;that the functionality exists, we all want functionality.&amp;nbsp;
   The problem is when it is hard (or impossible) to shut something off effectively it
   is maddening and often leaves people dismayed.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   Time for an analogy:&lt;br&gt;
   I have doors on my house that I leave unlocked all the time.&amp;nbsp; The dogs and other
   things in the house keep it secure (if you know me then you know what I mean), but
   if I wanted to secure those doors and found that I could lock them, but the manufacturer
   set them up so that the hinges were on the outside and manipulatable by an intruder
   then I would be unhappy.&amp;nbsp; Most security outrage and dismay comes from features
   that just didn't take security into consideration for the times when I don't want
   the user to do anything except what the user is told they can do.&lt;br&gt;
   &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;
   This will always be an arms race.&amp;nbsp; If one of our &lt;a href="http://www.cyberspacesamurai.com"&gt;professional
   security gurus such as Duane Laflotte&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wants to get in and has physical access
   to a workstation or server then he can get in, but there is a point where I will say,
   yes I accept that there are some things I can't defend against.&amp;nbsp; If you use a
   tank to blow in my front door, I won't moan to the manufacturer about them not being
   tank proof, that is what the mines are for ;)&lt;br&gt;
   &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;
   Is Vista the solution to all security problems?&amp;nbsp; I doubt it.&amp;nbsp; I expect that
   there will be improvement based on features I already know are in the most recent
   builds, but I won't judge the security of Vista until after it ships (and won't pay
   all that much attention to it until then either) since the devil is in the details
   and the truth is in the final bits.&amp;nbsp; Submarines either leak or they don't.&amp;nbsp;
   The OS will be judged in much the same way in regards to security. 
   &lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   Ultimately information is power.&amp;nbsp; Nowhere is that more true than in the realm
   of security.&amp;nbsp; I suggest that you learn all you can and I will do what I can to
   help.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7"&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=766247b2-d2a6-4070-9fba-69120d7d3be7</comments>
      <category>Network</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.patrickhynds.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://www.patrickhynds.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3</pingback:target>
      <wfw:comment>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickhynds.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
      There are many varying opinions on almost everything, but Compliance is one of those
      topics like economics, everyone has a different opinion it seems.<br /><br />
      I was reading an article by one of the Systems Engineers at Network Appliance entitled,
      "<a href="http://communications.netapp.com/PS!l80h7QrUJ/cFBgIAAAAGCgFICggzNzM1MzUyOAoKMTY0MTM0NzIzMwkABtLMCgkxNTU4MDE4MjYF">Six
      Tips for Archive and<br />
      Compliance Planning</a>" and while I agree with most of the points Mike Riley makes,
      I had to think a bit about his words on Encryption.<br /><br />
      He isn't saying not to use encryption, on the contrary, he is saying that encryption
      is a must, but the advice is sound.  Be careful what you do and the ramifications. 
      With compliance systems, often search and rapid retrieval are key and these are some
      of the most plausible arguements against specific applications of encryption.<br /><br />
      As always, look before you leap.  I guarentee that if you think about where you
      should be using encryption you are already ahead of most.<br /><br /></p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3" />
      </body>
      <title>Considering Compliance implications...</title>
      <guid>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3</guid>
      <link>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:19:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
   There are many varying opinions on almost everything, but Compliance is one of those
   topics like economics, everyone has a different opinion it seems.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   I was reading an article by one of the Systems Engineers at Network Appliance entitled,
   "&lt;a href="http://communications.netapp.com/PS!l80h7QrUJ/cFBgIAAAAGCgFICggzNzM1MzUyOAoKMTY0MTM0NzIzMwkABtLMCgkxNTU4MDE4MjYF"&gt;Six
   Tips for Archive and&lt;br&gt;
   Compliance Planning&lt;/a&gt;" and while I agree with most of the points Mike Riley makes,
   I had to think a bit about his words on Encryption.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   He isn't saying not to use encryption, on the contrary, he is saying that encryption
   is a must, but the advice is sound.&amp;nbsp; Be careful what you do and the ramifications.&amp;nbsp;
   With compliance systems, often search and rapid retrieval are key and these are some
   of the most plausible arguements against specific applications of encryption.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   As always, look before you leap.&amp;nbsp; I guarentee that if you think about where you
   should be using encryption you are already ahead of most.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3"&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=9ff76b07-122f-465e-a2e2-06ea1d7750b3</comments>
      <category>Network</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.patrickhynds.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://www.patrickhynds.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f</pingback:target>
      <wfw:comment>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickhynds.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <font size="2">
          <p>
      I was recently asked by a very technical and very sharp friend of mine about the symantics
      of permissions on copy.<br /><br />
      I figured if he needed some guidance on how this works then there must be a ton of
      other developers who could use a refresher so here goes:<br /><br />
      There are alot of reasons that a developer or QA engineer must use copy or move to
      get their applications running for test or even for production.  The problem
      is that the same old processes that worked so many times before can often mask a misconception
      or two that arise as "bugs" when the moons do not align to make the old process function
      as expected.  Case in point.  You want to deploy a web application which
      has notoriously particular permissions requirements.  If copy has always worked
      in  the past, but on the new server you are getting strange permissions then
      you might be forgetting some of the rules.<br /><br />
      The first thing to take into account is whether this is this a move within the same
      volume (nothing fancy) or a move across volumes (maybe obscured by DFS) or even just
      a plain old copy (often the case).<br /><br />
      A move within volumes would mean you should have the permissions preserved. A move
      across volumes is actually a copy and a delete combined and means you are just getting
      the permissions of the target folder which is by design and this is also the behavior
      of a copy unless you use something like scopy which preserves permissions.<br /><br />
      If a copy in the past has preserved permissions and you didn't use scopy (very handy
      by the way) then either there is a setting in Windows that I am unaware
      of (please enlighten me) or you got lucky in the past and the target folder permissions
      were what you expected.<br /><br />
      Usually file permissions and especially the semantics of permissions on copy vs. move
      are the domain of network types.  In many cases it helps alot to be a mongrel
      from both worlds.
   </p>
        </font>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f" />
      </body>
      <title>File System Permissions on copy or move</title>
      <guid>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f</guid>
      <link>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:38:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;font size=2&gt; 
&lt;p&gt;
   I was recently asked by a very technical and very sharp friend of mine about the symantics
   of permissions on copy.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   I figured if he needed some guidance on how this works then there must be a ton of
   other developers who could use a refresher so here goes:&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   There are alot of reasons that a developer or QA engineer must use copy or move to
   get their applications running for test or even for production.&amp;nbsp; The problem
   is that the same old processes that worked so many times before can often mask a misconception
   or two that arise as "bugs" when the moons do not align to make the old process function
   as expected.&amp;nbsp; Case in point.&amp;nbsp; You want to deploy a web application which
   has notoriously particular permissions requirements.&amp;nbsp; If copy has always worked
   in&amp;nbsp; the past, but on the new server you are getting strange permissions then
   you might be forgetting some of the rules.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   The first thing to take into account is whether this is this a move within the same
   volume (nothing fancy) or a move across volumes (maybe obscured by DFS) or even just
   a plain old copy (often the case).&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   A move within volumes would mean you should have the permissions preserved. A move
   across volumes is actually a copy and a delete combined and means you are just getting
   the permissions of the target folder which is by design and this is also the behavior
   of a copy unless you use something like scopy which preserves permissions.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   If a copy in the past has preserved permissions and you didn't use scopy (very handy
   by the&amp;nbsp;way)&amp;nbsp;then either there is a setting in Windows that I am unaware
   of (please enlighten me) or you got lucky in the past and the target folder permissions
   were what you expected.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   Usually file permissions and especially the semantics of permissions on copy vs. move
   are the domain of network types.&amp;nbsp; In many cases it helps alot to be a mongrel
   from both worlds.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f"&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=40d6ee67-f1a5-4cf8-9da8-d5d0a7df9c9f</comments>
      <category>Development</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.patrickhynds.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://www.patrickhynds.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78</pingback:target>
      <wfw:comment>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickhynds.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">As the title of this site states, it is
   a real battle to keep up with the technology and an even bigger challenge to have
   a life along with that effort.  On a fairly regular basis now I realize this
   when a standard feature of a widely available tool or technology is virtually unknown
   and therefore unused.  I am pretty sure that queries in Active Directory falls
   into this catagory.<br /><br />
   In Active Directory Users and Computers you can create custom queries through the
   MMC that can help you track down security problems that are very work intensive to
   do manually.  In the Common Quesries dialog you can even check a box to search
   for Non expiring passwords and disabled accounts.  Disabled accounts aren't very
   interesting since the UI gives you that list in a browsable AD, but accounts set to
   bypass the password expiration rules are a perfect way for an outgoing administrator
   to create and preserve a backdoor.<br /><br />
   Check it out, who knows what else you might find in there!<img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78" /></body>
      <title>AD Security Feature you should know about</title>
      <guid>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78</guid>
      <link>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:47:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>As the title of this site states, it is a real battle to keep up with the technology and an even bigger challenge to have a life along with that effort.&amp;nbsp; On a fairly regular basis now I realize this when a standard feature of a widely available tool or technology is virtually unknown and therefore unused.&amp;nbsp; I am pretty sure that queries in Active Directory falls into this catagory.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
In Active Directory Users and Computers you can create custom queries through the
MMC that can help you track down security problems that are very work intensive to
do manually.&amp;nbsp; In the Common Quesries dialog you can even check a box to search
for Non expiring passwords and disabled accounts.&amp;nbsp; Disabled accounts aren't very
interesting since the UI gives you that list in a browsable AD, but accounts set to
bypass the password expiration rules are a perfect way for an outgoing administrator
to create and preserve a backdoor.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Check it out, who knows what else you might find in there!&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78"&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=3628168a-81f9-4ec5-b4a3-44c8283d1d78</comments>
      <category>Network</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.patrickhynds.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://www.patrickhynds.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc</pingback:target>
      <wfw:comment>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickhynds.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
      Windows 2003 Server Pack 1 has a new capability that you might want to look into called
      Quarantine VPN.<br /><br />
      With this technique you can validate that all clients that connect to your VPN meet
      specific requirements before they actually get access to network resources. 
      Microsoft has been doing this on their network for quite a while now and they have
      finally given everyone else that uses their products the same capability.<br /><br />
      For details on how to implement it and a more in depth overview on Quarantine VPN
      read this <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/prodtech/windowsserver2003/quarantineservices/default.mspx">Technet
      article</a>.
   </p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc" />
      </body>
      <title>Quarantine VPN</title>
      <guid>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc</guid>
      <link>http://www.patrickhynds.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:57:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
   Windows 2003 Server Pack 1 has a new capability that you might want to look into called
   Quarantine VPN.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   With this technique you can validate that all clients that connect to your VPN meet
   specific requirements before they actually get access to network resources.&amp;nbsp;
   Microsoft has been doing this on their network for quite a while now and they have
   finally given everyone else that uses their products the same capability.&lt;br&gt;
   &lt;br&gt;
   For details on how to implement it and a more in depth overview on Quarantine VPN
   read this &lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/prodtech/windowsserver2003/quarantineservices/default.mspx"&gt;Technet
   article&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.patrickhynds.com/aggbug.ashx?id=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc"&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://www.patrickhynds.com/CommentView.aspx?guid=15251d60-663f-4016-98a4-8e71767b13bc</comments>
      <category>Network</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>