<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NTFS Rights Issue with UAC, logged on with Domain Admin Account</title>
	<atom:link href="http://drewh70.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ntfs-rights-issue-using-uac-with-a-non-built-in-domain-admin-account/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://drewh70.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ntfs-rights-issue-using-uac-with-a-non-built-in-domain-admin-account/</link>
	<description>COMPLETELY FULL OF I.T.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:30:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://drewh70.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ntfs-rights-issue-using-uac-with-a-non-built-in-domain-admin-account/#comment-657</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drewh70.wordpress.com/?p=202#comment-657</guid>
		<description>This appears to me as nothing more than a band-aid to mis-implemented security to begin with.  As described it&#039;s supposed to prevent malware and the like from making changes while running under the login of an administrative account.  On a home system this can be useful as many users never create standard accounts to use.  However in a domain environment it simply does nothing more than cripple administrative progress by totally trashing the usefulness of transitive security.  I don&#039;t disagree with the results, nor the reasoning, but the execution was half-assed like many other new &quot;features&quot; in the 08/ vista line-up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This appears to me as nothing more than a band-aid to mis-implemented security to begin with.  As described it&#8217;s supposed to prevent malware and the like from making changes while running under the login of an administrative account.  On a home system this can be useful as many users never create standard accounts to use.  However in a domain environment it simply does nothing more than cripple administrative progress by totally trashing the usefulness of transitive security.  I don&#8217;t disagree with the results, nor the reasoning, but the execution was half-assed like many other new &#8220;features&#8221; in the 08/ vista line-up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://drewh70.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ntfs-rights-issue-using-uac-with-a-non-built-in-domain-admin-account/#comment-656</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drewh70.wordpress.com/?p=202#comment-656</guid>
		<description>This appears to me as nothing more than a band-aid to mis-implemented security to begin with.  This totally trashes the usefulness of transitive security.  I don&#039;t disagree with the results, nor the reasoning, but the execution was half-assed like many other new &quot;features&quot; in the 08/ vista line-up.  Wasn&#039;t the purpose of computing to make life easier?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This appears to me as nothing more than a band-aid to mis-implemented security to begin with.  This totally trashes the usefulness of transitive security.  I don&#8217;t disagree with the results, nor the reasoning, but the execution was half-assed like many other new &#8220;features&#8221; in the 08/ vista line-up.  Wasn&#8217;t the purpose of computing to make life easier?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://drewh70.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ntfs-rights-issue-using-uac-with-a-non-built-in-domain-admin-account/#comment-651</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:53:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drewh70.wordpress.com/?p=202#comment-651</guid>
		<description>This was precisely my issue. How silly that it restricts local access for domain admins. Also worth noting is that if you are accessing these files via a network share, the Share and NTFS rights work as expected allowing the domain admin access. It&#039;s only when logged in and accessing the files from the desktop that UAC denies access. I too think this is lame and should be addressed by Microsoft.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was precisely my issue. How silly that it restricts local access for domain admins. Also worth noting is that if you are accessing these files via a network share, the Share and NTFS rights work as expected allowing the domain admin access. It&#8217;s only when logged in and accessing the files from the desktop that UAC denies access. I too think this is lame and should be addressed by Microsoft.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vinod</title>
		<link>http://drewh70.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ntfs-rights-issue-using-uac-with-a-non-built-in-domain-admin-account/#comment-645</link>
		<dc:creator>Vinod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:11:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drewh70.wordpress.com/?p=202#comment-645</guid>
		<description>It is also interesting to note that while UAC give you prompt for a user who is a member of Domain admin, it does not prompt you if you are using domain admin &quot;administrator&quot; which is the orignal admin account created with the domain. Has anyone noticed this??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is also interesting to note that while UAC give you prompt for a user who is a member of Domain admin, it does not prompt you if you are using domain admin &#8220;administrator&#8221; which is the orignal admin account created with the domain. Has anyone noticed this??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://drewh70.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ntfs-rights-issue-using-uac-with-a-non-built-in-domain-admin-account/#comment-637</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drewh70.wordpress.com/?p=202#comment-637</guid>
		<description>This is a bit of an annoyance and I&#039;d be interested to see the reasoning behind this and the suggested &quot;best practices&quot; to overcome this issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a bit of an annoyance and I&#8217;d be interested to see the reasoning behind this and the suggested &#8220;best practices&#8221; to overcome this issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob McChesney</title>
		<link>http://drewh70.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ntfs-rights-issue-using-uac-with-a-non-built-in-domain-admin-account/#comment-631</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob McChesney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drewh70.wordpress.com/?p=202#comment-631</guid>
		<description>I also find this behaviour quite annoying, but I think it&#039;s by design. http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/archive/2007/01.aspx explains the behaviour well.

What I don&#039;t understand is why an windows explorer window opened with elevated permissions also has this issue. When running in elevated mode the Administrators group should apply I think (it does if you running cmd elevated).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also find this behaviour quite annoying, but I think it&#8217;s by design. <a href="http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/archive/2007/01.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/archive/2007/01.aspx</a> explains the behaviour well.</p>
<p>What I don&#8217;t understand is why an windows explorer window opened with elevated permissions also has this issue. When running in elevated mode the Administrators group should apply I think (it does if you running cmd elevated).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
