Search Results

Search found 3191 results on 128 pages for 'eu policy'.

Page 8/128 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• Monitor SQL Server Agent Jobs with Policy Based Management

  I need to monitor all the SQL Agents to find out if a job failed in the last 24 hours. Could this be done with policy based management? If so, can you show me how to create the policy? Join SQL Backup’s 35,000+ customers to compress and strengthen your backups "SQL Backup will be a REAL boost to any DBA lucky enough to use it." Jonathan Allen. Download a free trial now.

  Read the article

• How do I prevent or override a group policy on Windows 7?

  - by Kevin

  A few months ago my company was purchased by a large corporation. We recently switched our network over to the large corporate network which has more restrictions requirements. One of these is the requirement to use a proxy server for Internet traffic. However, some of our internal servers are not recognized by the corporate DNS, so we need to provide the fully qualified domain name. For W7, we make changes to the Internet Properties for IE8 and Chrome to include our domain name as an exception to the proxy server (e.g., *.foobar.com). The problem is that a group policy that does not include our domain name is continually pushed out to my systems throughout the day. This requires me to make the appropriate changes to the Internet Properties several times a day in order to access our internal servers. Is there a way that I can prevent the group policy from being pushed to my systems or detect when the group policy is pushed and override it? I am an administrator on all of my systems. I do have Firefox installed which is not subject to the same group policy push, but I need to have IE8 and Chrome working.

  Read the article

• How do I prevent or override a group policy on Windows 7?

  - by Kevin

  A few months ago my company was purchased by a large corporation. We recently switched our network over to the large corporate network which has more restrictions requirements. One of these is the requirement to use a proxy server for Internet traffic. However, some of our internal servers are not recognized by the corporate DNS, so we need to provide the fully qualified domain name. For W7, we make changes to the Internet Properties for IE8 and Chrome to include our domain name as an exception to the proxy server (e.g., *.foobar.com). The problem is that a group policy that does not include our domain name is continually pushed out to my systems throughout the day. This requires me to make the appropriate changes to the Internet Properties several times a day in order to access our internal servers. Is there a way that I can prevent the group policy from being pushed to my systems or detect when the group policy is pushed and override it? I am an administrator on all of my systems. I do have Firefox installed which is not subject to the same group policy push, but I need to have IE8 and Chrome working.

  Read the article

• I deployed Flash Player via a Software Installation policy. How to upgrade?

  - by eleven81

  I have a Windows Server 2008 machine as my DC. Earlier this year I created a Software Installation GPO to deploy Adobe Flash Player plugin MSI. I assigned the policy to the computers, about half run Windows XP x86 and the other half Windows 7 x64. That all works like clockwork. When I created the Software Installation Policy, I disabled the Flash Player plugin's automatic update feature by editing the MSI in Orca. I did this because I wanted all of my machines to run the exact same version of the plugin. Now, some time has passed and a newer version of the Flash Player plugin has been released. It is time for me to push out the updated version of the plugin. I already have the new MSI, but I am lost on what to do next. I see the upgrades tab in the Software Installation GPO, but everything there reads like that would be used for add-ons to a larger master program and not for updates that are released over time. I have read that it is best to create a new Software Installation policy with the new MSI, revoke the old GPO, and assign the new GPO. I feel as though, over time, I will wind up with more revoked policies than active ones. I have also read that some people have had success by replacing the old MSI with the new MSI and simply telling the GPO to redeploy. This seems like a backdoor method that will only get me in to trouble. In short, what is the correct, best-practice, or preferred way to roll out the new version via Group Policy?

  Read the article

• The Unintended Consequences of Sound Security Policy

  - by Tanu Sood

  v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} Author: Kevin Moulton, CISSP, CISM Meet the Author: Kevin Moulton, Senior Sales Consulting Manager, Oracle Kevin Moulton, CISSP, CISM, has been in the security space for more than 25 years, and with Oracle for 7 years. He manages the East Enterprise Security Sales Consulting Team. He is also a Distinguished Toastmaster. Follow Kevin on Twitter at twitter.com/kevin_moulton, where he sometimes tweets about security, but might also tweet about running, beer, food, baseball, football, good books, or whatever else grabs his attention. Kevin will be a regular contributor to this blog so stay tuned for more posts from him. When I speak to a room of IT administrators, I like to begin by asking them if they have implemented a complex password policy. Generally, they all nod their heads enthusiastically. I ask them if that password policy requires long passwords. More nodding. I ask if that policy requires upper and lower case letters – faster nodding – numbers – even faster – special characters – enthusiastic nodding all around! I then ask them if their policy also includes a requirement for users to regularly change their passwords. Now we have smiles with the nodding! I ask them if the users have different IDs and passwords on the many systems that they have access to. Of course! I then ask them if, when they walk around the building, they see something like this: Thanks to Jake Ludington for the nice example. Can these administrators be faulted for their policies? Probably not but, in the end, end-users will find a way to get their job done efficiently. Post-It Notes to the rescue! I was visiting a business in New York City one day which was a perfect example of this problem. First I walked up to the security desk and told them where I was headed. They asked me if they should call upstairs to have someone escort me. Is that my call? Is that policy? I said that I knew where I was going, so they let me go. Having the conference room number handy, I wandered around the place in a search of my destination. As I walked around, unescorted, I noticed the post-it note problem in abundance. Had I been so inclined, I could have logged in on almost any machine and into any number of systems. When I reached my intended conference room, I mentioned my post-it note observation to the two gentlemen with whom I was meeting. One of them said, “You mean like this,” and he produced a post it note full of login IDs and passwords from his breast pocket! I gave him kudos for not hanging the list on his monitor. We then talked for the rest of the meeting about the difficulties faced by the employees due to the security policies. These policies, although well-intended, made life very difficult for the end-users. Most users had access to 8 to 12 systems, and the passwords for each expired at a different times. The post-it note solution was understandable. Who could remember even half of them? What could this customer have done differently? I am a fan of using a provisioning system, such as Oracle Identity Manager, to manage all of the target systems. With OIM, and email could be automatically sent to all users when it was time to change their password. The end-users would follow a link to change their password on a web page, and then OIM would propagate that password out to all of the systems that the user had access to, even if the login IDs were different. Another option would be an Enterprise Single-Sign On Solution. With Oracle eSSO, all of a user’s credentials would be stored in a central, encrypted credential store. The end-user would only have to login to their machine each morning and then, as they moved to each new system, Oracle eSSO would supply the credentials. Good-bye post-it notes! 3M may be disappointed, but your end users will thank you. I hear people say that this post-it note problem is not a big deal, because the only people who would see the passwords are fellow employees. Do you really know who is walking around your building? What are the password policies in your business? How do the end-users respond?

  Read the article

• How Can I prevent a specific application from being run on a specific machine using Group Policy?

  - by Mike

  I know this is possible to do and I am working on it with limited success. I believe the Group Policy I want is "Do Not Run Specified Windows Applications" - I can enable this and add the .exe I want to the list of programs not to be run. I have tried this on my local machine by running gpedit.msc going to User Config Admin Templates System and then choosing that policy and editing and enabling it. Doing it this way verifies that it works as I could then not run the specified .exe (XenAppWeb.exe) So this is great. I have created a GPO to do the same thing in GP Management on my domain controller where we centralize this, enforced it, applied it to an OU, and put one of our machines into this OU to test it. I have let it sit there for 3 days, run gpupdate /force, and when I try to run XenAppWeb.exe on this machine, it still lets me run it fine. What can I look at to troubleshoot this? I should note that I am trying to enact this policy on Windows XP machines (Virtual Machines) Thanks, Mike

  Read the article

• Windows AD: Is loopback processing absolutely necessary in order to apply a user policy to users logging into computers in the OU?

  - by Brett

  I've had our AD setup running on server 2008r2 and now 2012, and I swear, a user policy applied to an OU containing only computers actually does apply to users logging into those computers, without loopback processing enabled. Everything I read seems to say that is not how it should work, but it does. Is this normal behavior? Just tested again - created a policy with a drive map (which is a user policy), applied it to an OU containing my terminal server, forced a gpupdate, logged out/in, and sure enough, the drive is mapped. I did NOT turn on loopback processing.

  Read the article

• Resrtict MS Access creation

  - by Rick

  Is it possible to restrict MS Access creation but still be able to view and execute Access files.

  Read the article

• Transition from GPO to GPP

  - by spelk

  I have a Windows network with a 2003 server as the PDC, and a 2008R2 server as a DC. We have used GPO sparsely when the majority of our workstations were WinXP, but now we have Windows 7 clients and we're having some issues with printer mapping. I'm not quite sure how I would go about taking up GPP, would it involve shifting the PDC over to the 2008R2 server? Any advice on what to do, and how to accomplish it would be very much appreciated.

  Read the article

• How do I use Group Policy on a domain to delete Temporary Internet Files?

  - by Muhammad Ali

  I have a domain controller running on Windows 2008 Server R2 and users login to application servers on which Windows 2003 Server SP2 is installed. I have applied a Group Policy to clean temporary internet files on exit i.e to delete all temporary internet files when users close the browser. But the group policy doesn't seem to work as user profile size keeps on increasing and the major space is occupied by temporary internet files therefore increasing the disk usage. How can i enforce automatic deletion of temporary internet files?

  Read the article

• Enterprise level control of ClickOnce product on corporate network with group policy?

  - by MrEdmundo

  Hi there I'm a developer looking at introducing ClickOnce deployment for an internal .NET Winforms application that will be distributed via the corporate network. Currently the product roll out and updates are handled by Group Policy however I would like to control the updates via ClickOnce deployment now. What I would like to know is, how should I initially roll out the package to make sure that all users have got it. Can I use a combination of Group Policy (the roll out) and then rely on the ClickOnce deployment model for any further updates?

  Read the article

• Wallpaper in Windows 7 locked down by domain group policy?

  - by Robert Dailey

  So I am in a situation where my wallpaper is locked to a specific image on my work computer via group policy. I can't change it via the Personalization settings since it is grayed out and says it has been set by the system administrator. Anyone know some local GPO and/or registry hackery I can do to override the domain's policy? I could probably get away with logging in under a local account for this, but I want that to be a last resort. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• WatchGuard 'Internal Policy' intermittently blocking outbound web traffic

  - by vfilby

  I have a lot of legitimate outbound traffic intermittently being denied by WatchGuard's "Internal Policy." Today I tried to go to Splunk's homepage and my traffic was denied by my watchguard XTM 22 with Pro upgrade. What is the "Internal Policy" and what can I do to control it? Example of Traffic being blocked Type Date Action Source IP Port Interface Destination IP Port Policy Traffic 2011-09-21T18:24:43 Deny 10.0.0.90 49627 3-Primary LAN 64.127.105.40 80 Firebox Internal Policy http/tcp Top three firewall policies:

  Read the article

• Resize image on ViewSonic CD3200-EU

  - by JohnLBevan

  My ViewSonic CD3200-EU monitor doesn't seem to have an option to scale the image vertically. I've tried all the buttons which look promising and even went as far as browsing the manual (possibly my first time). http://www.viewsoniceurope.com/uk/assets/004/9269.pdf Does anyone know if this can be done? I'm connecting with an android hdmi stick (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B008XX29WS/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00) so if there's any way to change screensize that way that would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• RestrictedUI: A .NET Library for restricting a user interface based on a security policy

  How to control the user interface using a policy established in a declaratively way, based on user roles and application status.

  Read the article

• how to get more vacation time than "policy" allows

  - by SpashHit

  At my company, the maximum vacation is 3 weeks for everyone but executives. Therefore I cannot even start negotiating for an increase to 4 weeks.. it's a non-starter because it's "against policy"... even though I think my experience and value to the company warrant it, and I've gotten 4 weeks at previous jobs. (I know I could have made a "hard stand" before taking this job, but that's water under the bridge) Any advice? I was kind of thinking of taking the "you want to be competitive" tack to get them to change their policy but I don't know where to find the kind of data I would need to support that.

  Read the article

• European Interoperability Framework - a new beginning?

  - by trond-arne.undheim

  The most controversial document in the history of the European Commission's IT policy is out. EIF is here, wrapped in the Communication "Towards interoperability for European public services", and including the new feature European Interoperability Strategy (EIS), arguably a higher strategic take on the same topic. Leaving EIS aside for a moment, the EIF controversy has been around IPR, defining open standards and about the proper terminology around standardization deliverables. Today, as the document finally emerges, what is the verdict? First of all, to be fair to those among you who do not spend your lives in the intricate labyrinths of Commission IT policy documents on interoperability, let's define what we are talking about. According to the Communication: "An interoperability framework is an agreed approach to interoperability for organisations that want to collaborate to provide joint delivery of public services. Within its scope of applicability, it specifies common elements such as vocabulary, concepts, principles, policies, guidelines, recommendations, standards, specifications and practices." The Good - EIF reconfirms that "The Digital Agenda can only take off if interoperability based on standards and open platforms is ensured" and also confirms that "The positive effect of open specifications is also demonstrated by the Internet ecosystem." - EIF takes a productive and pragmatic stance on openness: "In the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and stimulate debate within that community, the ultimate goal being to advance knowledge and the use of this knowledge to solve problems" (p.11). "If the openness principle is applied in full: - All stakeholders have the same possibility of contributing to the development of the specification and public review is part of the decision-making process; - The specification is available for everybody to study; - Intellectual property rights related to the specification are licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software" (p. 26). - EIF is a formal Commission document. The former EIF 1.0 was a semi-formal deliverable from the PEGSCO, a working group of Member State representatives. - EIF tackles interoperability head-on and takes a clear stance: "Recommendation 22. When establishing European public services, public administrations should prefer open specifications, taking due account of the coverage of functional needs, maturity and market support." - The Commission will continue to support the National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO), reconfirming the importance of coordinating such approaches across borders. - The Commission will align its internal interoperability strategy with the EIS through the eCommission initiative. - One cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. The EIF seems to have picked up on this fact: What does the EIF says about the relation between open specifications and open source software? The EIF introduces, as one of the characteristics of an open specification, the requirement that IPRs related to the specification have to be licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software. In this way, companies working under various business models can compete on an equal footing when providing solutions to public administrations while administrations that implement the standard in their own software (software that they own) can share such software with others under an open source licence if they so decide. - EIF is now among the center pieces of the Digital Agenda (even though this demands extensive inter-agency coordination in the Commission): "The EIS and the EIF will be maintained under the ISA Programme and kept in line with the results of other relevant Digital Agenda actions on interoperability and standards such as the ones on the reform of rules on implementation of ICT standards in Europe to allow use of certain ICT fora and consortia standards, on issuing guidelines on essential intellectual property rights and licensing conditions in standard-setting, including for ex-ante disclosure, and on providing guidance on the link between ICT standardisation and public procurement to help public authorities to use standards to promote efficiency and reduce lock-in.(Communication, p.7)" All in all, quite a few good things have happened to the document in the two years it has been on the shelf or was being re-written, depending on your perspective, in any case, awaiting the storms to calm. The Bad - While a certain pragmatism is required, and governments cannot migrate to full openness overnight, EIF gives a bit too much room for governments not to apply the openness principle in full. Plenty of reasons are given, which should maybe have been put as challenges to be overcome: "However, public administrations may decide to use less open specifications, if open specifications do not exist or do not meet functional interoperability needs. In all cases, specifications should be mature and sufficiently supported by the market, except if used in the context of creating innovative solutions". - EIF does not use the internationally established terminology: open standards. Rather, the EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification". How do "formalised specifications" relate to "standards"? According to the FAQ provided: The word "standard" has a specific meaning in Europe as defined by Directive 98/34/EC. Only technical specifications approved by a recognised standardisation body can be called a standard. Many ICT systems rely on the use of specifications developed by other organisations such as a forum or consortium. The EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification", which is either a standard pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC or a specification established by ICT fora and consortia. The term "open specification" used in the EIF, on the one hand, avoids terminological confusion with the Directive and, on the other, states the main features that comply with the basic principle of openness laid down in the EIF for European Public Services. Well, this may be somewhat true, but in reality, Europe is 30 year behind in terminology. Unless the European Standardization Reform gets completed in the next few months, most Member States will likely conclude that they will go on referencing and using standards beyond those created by the three European endorsed monopolists of standardization, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Who can afford to begin following the strict Brussels rules for what they can call open standards when, in reality, standards stemming from global standardization organizations, so-called fora/consortia, dominate in the IT industry. What exactly is EIF saying? Does it encourage Member States to go on using non-ESO standards as long as they call it something else? I guess I am all for it, although it is a bit cumbersome, no? Why was there so much interest around the EIF? The FAQ attempts to explain: Some Member States have begun to adopt policies to achieve interoperability for their public services. These actions have had a significant impact on the ecosystem built around the provision of such services, e.g. providers of ICT goods and services, standardisation bodies, industry fora and consortia, etc... The Commission identified a clear need for action at European level to ensure that actions by individual Member States would not create new electronic barriers that would hinder the development of interoperable European public services. As a result, all stakeholders involved in the delivery of electronic public services in Europe have expressed their opinions on how to increase interoperability for public services provided by the different public administrations in Europe. Well, it does not take two years to read 50 consultation documents, and the EU Standardization Reform is not yet completed, so, more pragmatically, you finally had to release the document. Ok, let's leave some of that aside because the document is out and some people are happy (and others definitely not). The Verdict Considering the controversy, the delays, the lobbying, and the interests at stake both in the EU, in Member States and among vendors large and small, this document is pretty impressive. As with a good wine that has not yet come to full maturity, let's say that it seems to be coming in in the 85-88/100 range, but only a more fine-grained analysis, enjoyment in good company, and ultimately, implementation, will tell. The European Commission has today adopted a significant interoperability initiative to encourage public administrations across the EU to maximise the social and economic potential of information and communication technologies. Today, we should rally around this achievement. Tomorrow, let's sit down and figure out what it means for the future.

  Read the article

• Metro UsernameToken Policy

  - by Rodney

  I created a web services client prototype using api's available in weblogic 10.3. I've been told I need to use Metro 2.0 instead (it's already being used for other projects). The problem I have encounter is that the WSDL does not include any Security Policy information but a UsernameToken is required for each method call. In weblogic I was able to write my own policy xml file and instantiate my service with it (see below), however I can not seem to figure out how to do the same using Metro. Policy.xml <?xml version="1.0"?> <wsp:Policy xmlns:wsp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/policy" xmlns:sp="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200512"> <sp:SupportingTokens> <wsp:Policy> <sp:UsernameToken sp:IncludeToken="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200512/IncludeToken/AlwaysToRecipient"> <wsp:Policy> <sp:WssUsernameToken10/> <sp:HashPassword/> </wsp:Policy> </sp:UsernameToken> </wsp:Policy> </sp:SupportingTokens> </wsp:Policy> Client.java (Weblogic) ClientPolicyFeature cpf = new ClientPolicyFeature(); InputStream asStream = WebServiceSoapClient.class.getResourceAsStream("Policy.xml"); cpf.setEffectivePolicy(new InputStreamPolicySource(asStream)); try { webService = new WebService(new URL("http://192.168.1.10/WebService/WebService.asmx?wsdl"), new QName("http://testme.com", "WebService")); } catch ( MalformedURLException e ) { e.printStackTrace(); } WebServiceSoap client = webService.getWebServiceSoap(new WebServiceFeature[] {cpf}); List<CredentialProvider> credProviders = new ArrayList<CredentialProvider>(); String username = "user"; String password = "pass"; CredentialProvider cp = new ClientUNTCredentialProvider(username.getBytes(), password.getBytes()); credProviders.add(cp); Map<String, Object> rc = ((BindingProvider) client).getRequestContext(); rc.put(WSSecurityContext.CREDENTIAL_PROVIDER_LIST, credProviders); ... I am able to generate my Proxy classes using Metro however I can not figure out how to configure it to send the UsernameToken. I have attempted several different examples from the web which have not worked. Any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• iptables ACCEPT policy

  - by kamae

  In Redhat EL 6, iptables INPUT policy is ACCEPT but INPUT chain has REJECT entry in the end. /etc/syconfig/iptables is as below: *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT Do you know why the policy is ACCEPT not DROP? I think setting DROP policy is safer than ACCEPT in case to make mistake in the chain. Actually the policy is not applied to any packet: # iptables -L -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)

  Read the article

• Problem adding "Network Policy and Access Services" role in Server 2008

  - by Django Reinhardt

  We are encountering an Error Code 0x80070643 when attempting to add the "Network Policy and Access Services" role on a fresh Windows Server 2008 R2 installation. Is there a known solution for this problem? Here is what information we have available so far: From ServerManager.log... 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.712 [CBS] installing 'IAS NT Service RasServerAll RasRoutingProtocols ' ... 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.911 [CBS] ...parents that will be auto-installed: 'RasServer ' 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.912 [CBS] ...default children to turn-off: '<none>' 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.924 [CBS] ...current state of 'IAS NT Service': p: Staged, a: Staged, s: UninstallRequested 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.924 [CBS] ...setting state of 'IAS NT Service' to 'InstallRequested' 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.935 [CBS] ...current state of 'RasServerAll': p: Staged, a: Staged, s: UninstallRequested 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.935 [CBS] ...setting state of 'RasServerAll' to 'InstallRequested' 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.946 [CBS] ...current state of 'RasRoutingProtocols': p: Staged, a: Staged, s: UninstallRequested 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.946 [CBS] ...setting state of 'RasRoutingProtocols' to 'InstallRequested' 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.956 [CBS] ...current state of 'RasServer': p: Staged, a: Staged, s: UninstallRequested 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.956 [CBS] ...setting state of 'RasServer' to 'InstallRequested' 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.967 [CBS] ...'IAS NT Service' : applicability: Applicable 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.977 [CBS] ...'RasServerAll' : applicability: Applicable 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.987 [CBS] ...'RasRoutingProtocols' : applicability: Applicable 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:01.998 [CBS] ...'RasServer' : applicability: Applicable 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:02.906 [CbsUIHandler] Initiate: 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:02.906 [InstallationProgressPage] Installing... 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:54.311 [CbsUIHandler] Error: -2147023293 : 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:54.313 [CbsUIHandler] Terminate: 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:54.316 [InstallationProgressPage] Verifying installation... 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:54.326 [CBS] ...done installing 'IAS NT Service RasServerAll RasRoutingProtocols '. Status: -2147023293 (80070643) 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:54.329 [NPAS] Skipped configuration of 'Network Policy Server' because install operation failed. 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:54.330 [NPAS] Skipped configuration of 'Remote Access Service' because install operation failed. 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:54.330 [NPAS] Skipped configuration of 'Routing' because install operation failed. 2504: 2009-11-23 11:12:54.330 [Provider] [STAT] ---- CBS Session Consolidation ----- [STAT] For 'Network Policy Server', 'Remote Access Service', 'Routing'[STAT] installation(s) took '52.616957' second(s) total. [STAT] Configuration(s) took '0.0004948' second(s) total. [STAT] Total time: '52.6174518' second(s). From System Event Viewer... Log Name: System Source: Service Control Manager Date: 23/11/2009 11:12:23 Event ID: 7023 Task Category: None Level: Error Keywords: Classic User: N/A Computer: Av7Analytics Description: The Network Policy Server service terminated with the following error: %%-2147013892 Event Xml: <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event"> <System> <Provider Name="Service Control Manager" Guid="{555908d1-a6d7-4695-8e1e-26931d2012f4}" EventSourceName="Service Control Manager" /> <EventID Qualifiers="49152">7023</EventID> <Version>0</Version> <Level>2</Level> <Task>0</Task> <Opcode>0</Opcode> <Keywords>0x8080000000000000</Keywords> <TimeCreated SystemTime="2009-11-23T11:12:23.653578500Z" /> <EventRecordID>1317</EventRecordID> <Correlation /> <Execution ProcessID="468" ThreadID="2308" /> <Channel>System</Channel> <Computer>Av7Analytics</Computer> <Security /> </System> <EventData> <Data Name="param1">Network Policy Server</Data> <Data Name="param2">%%-2147013892</Data> </EventData> </Event> From Setup Event Viewer... Log Name: Setup Source: Microsoft-Windows-ServerManager Date: 23/11/2009 11:12:56 Event ID: 1616 Task Category: None Level: Error Keywords: User: AV7ANALYTICS\RenamedAdmin Computer: Av7Analytics Description: Installation failed. Roles: Network Policy and Access Services Error: Attempt to install Network Policy Server failed with error code 0x80070643. Fatal error during installation Error: Attempt to install Remote Access Service failed with error code 0x80070643. Fatal error during installation Error: Attempt to install Routing failed with error code 0x80070643. Fatal error during installation The following role services were not installed: Network Policy Server Routing and Remote Access Services Remote Access Service Routing Event Xml: <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event"> <System> <Provider Name="Microsoft-Windows-ServerManager" Guid="{8C474092-13E4-430E-9F06-5B60A529BF38}" /> <EventID>1616</EventID> <Version>0</Version> <Level>2</Level> <Task>0</Task> <Opcode>0</Opcode> <Keywords>0x4000000000000000</Keywords> <TimeCreated SystemTime="2009-11-23T11:12:56.046431200Z" /> <EventRecordID>115</EventRecordID> <Correlation /> <Execution ProcessID="2504" ThreadID="2344" /> <Channel>Setup</Channel> <Computer>Av7Analytics</Computer> <Security UserID="S-1-5-21-2753803390-1569373846-1208217686-500" /> </System> <UserData> <EventXML xmlns:auto-ns3="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events" xmlns="Event_NS"> <message> Roles: Network Policy and Access Services Error: Attempt to install Network Policy Server failed with error code 0x80070643. Fatal error during installation Error: Attempt to install Remote Access Service failed with error code 0x80070643. Fatal error during installation Error: Attempt to install Routing failed with error code 0x80070643. Fatal error during installation The following role services were not installed: Network Policy Server Routing and Remote Access Services Remote Access Service Routing </message> <identifiers>14, 206, 207, 208, 205</identifiers> </EventXML> </UserData> Thanks in advance for any help. It's quite shocking that we're already having problems with Microsoft's "latest and greatest".

  Read the article

• Group Policy Task Schedule deployed to User Configuration not working, works when in Computer Configuration?

  - by user80130

  I added a Scheduled Task on my Windows 2008 R2 Domain Controller in the Group Policy Manager: MyDomain Policy User Configuration Preferences Control Panel Settings Scheduled Tasks Basic Task, like starting notepad, when user unlocks his workstation. This should show up in the client workstation's task scheduler, but it dosn't. No errors or anything like that. If I use the "Computer Configuration" instead of "User Configuration" the task appears, and I'm able to run the task. I've tried the gpupdate /force followed by gpresult and checked the report, but it dosn't contain the GPO Scheduled Tasks I created? (again, does show up when using "Computer Configuration".) The issue is that I have to run the application in the current users context, and only on a specific Employee OU, and thereby limit this task only to Employee Workstations and not apply the application when the same employee log on to internal servers and such. Primary domain dontroller is a Windows 2008 R2, workstations Windows 7 Enterprise. What am I doing wrong ?

  Read the article

• Why does a group policy not applied to the domain administrator account?

  - by Saariko

  I have a working policy on my entire domain. I just found out, when logging with the domain administrator, that this policy is not applied (EDIT: Running : gpresult shows that the GPO's are applied - but, this GPO is for Drive Mappings, and the actual drive mappings are NOT shown) The administrator account - does not have any login script on his profile tab. My GPO's are mainly small/atomic settings: single GPO to handle each settings: UAC, Firewall, printers. GPO status for the object is enabled That's an overview of the Drive Maps: Reading on MS support site, I checked the delegation tab, and it is marked as applied to domain and enterprise admins. Every user gets these policies correctly. The OU that is set is the root of the domain. (for testing purpose - I did that to eliminate hierarchy issues - did not help) Block Inheritance is disabled. (never used it anyway) GPO link GPO Security Filterings

  Read the article

• How can I set an account lockout policy for the administrator account on rdp?

  - by reinier

  I'm following this page on security tips for RDP (for my online server): http://www.mobydisk.com/techres/securing_remote_desktop.html Now I don't have a special user account for RDP access. Just the administrator can log on. However, I want to make sure that someone can't brute force the password. I've set the 'account lockout policy' to 3 attempts and a retry after 3 minutes. However, when I connect back with RDP I can still try 5 times before RDP breaks the connection. I can then immediately reconnect and try 5 more times. Any ideas if there is a lockout policy which also holds true fro the admin?

  Read the article

• PEAR mail not sending to .eu email addresses

  - by andy-score

  I have a PEAR mailing script that is used to send newsletters from a clients website. I've used the same code before to produce another newsletter system and it has worked well and been used to send emails to various addresses, however our latest client has email addresses ending .eu and this seems to cause a problem. When the newsletter is sent from the site to the various subscribers, including gmail, hotmail, yahoo and our own company emails, the emails are received correctly by all but the clients email addresses, the ones ending in .eu. As there is nothing different between their mailing system and our own, which is run from the same hosting company, I have to conclude that it is something to do with the domain name. The emails are being sent to the addresses from the system, as I have a log file storing the email addresses when the mail out function is called, but the newsletter never appears in the inbox. I have created a new email account for the domain and that too isn't receiving the emails. It's not going into a spam folder as the webmail system marks spam by adding SPAM into the subject. I've tried to log if there are any errors using the following foreach($subscribers as $recipient) { $send_newsletter = $mail->send($recipient, $headers, $body); // LOG INFO $message = $recipient; if($send_newsletter) { $message .= ' SENT'; } elseif(PEAR::isError($send_newsletter)) { $message .= ' ERROR: '.$send_newsletter->getMessage(); } $message .= ' | '; fwrite($log_file,$message); } However this simple returns SENT for all recipients, so in theory there isn't anything wrong with the mailing function. I don't know a great deal about PEAR or the mailing function so I may be missing something important, but I'd have thought seeing the last thing to happen is sending the email out, and that seems to work, then it should reach the clients inbox. Is this something to do with the PEAR mailing function not liking .eu addresses or is it more likely to be something wrong in my code or with their domain? Any help is greatly appreciated as the client and myself are getting both confused and frustrated by the whole thing. Cheers

  Read the article

• Can I install applications to Remote Desktop Session Hosts via Group Policy?

  - by CC.

  I have a GPO that installs an application using the Software installation policy under Computer Configuration. I assign this GPO to the OU with our desktop/laptop computers, and my clients all install the software fine. I have another separate OU that covers our new Server 2012 RD session hosts. Previously, we've manually installed applications on our one Terminal Server. Now we have one Broker and two Session Hosts. I'd like to take my existing GPO, assign it to the session hosts, and have it install on the next reboot after a gpupdate so I'm sure that each is identically configured. Given this info: Should I be able to install applications via GPO to Session Hosts? Will Group Policy automatically install the applications as if I put the session host into /install mode, or do I need to do that?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >