«

Hi

On our Windows 2000 servers we have tried to set up Group Policy to
permit the silent installation of unsigned drivers by selecting the
"Silently Succeed" option. There are supposedly 2 settings you need to
change as follows:
Unsigned non-driver installation behaviour = silently succeed
Unsigned driver installation behaviour = silently succeed

If you open gpedit.msc on the local server and go to Computer
Configuration | Windows Settings | Security Settings | Local Policies |
Security Options you can see both these policies. However, with the
"Unsigned non-driver installation behaviour" setting, although it is
set to Silently Succeed in the local policy, the effective setting is
"Warn bit allow installation". This I took to mean that another policy
was overriding the local one. However, if I run GPresult (to check
which policies are having an effect) and check the policies listed,
there is not an "Unsigned non-driver installation behaviour" listed -
just the "Devices - Unsigned driver installation behaviour" policy.
Also, if I go to My Computer | Properties | Hardware | Driver Signing
it is already set to 'Ignore..." in there. What can be having this
effect on the local policy for the "Unsigned non-driver installation
behaviour" then? It really is a pain as we can't do silent installs of
certain software packages. Can anyone please help?? Many thanks.

In article < .com> planetman <> wrote:
>
>Hi
>
>On our Windows 2000 servers we have tried to set up Group Policy to
>permit the silent installation of unsigned drivers by selecting the
>"Silently Succeed" option. There are supposedly 2 settings you need to
>change as follows:
>Unsigned non-driver installation behaviour = silently succeed
>Unsigned driver installation behaviour = silently succeed

Is this the best that you can do? Never mind. Don't answer that.

>If you open gpedit.msc on the local server and go to Computer
>Configuration | Windows Settings | Security Settings | Local Policies |
>Security Options you can see both these policies. However, with the
>"Unsigned non-driver installation behaviour" setting, although it is
>set to Silently Succeed in the local policy, the effective setting is
>"Warn bit allow installation". This I took to mean that another policy
>was overriding the local one. However, if I run GPresult (to check
>which policies are having an effect) and check the policies listed,
>there is not an "Unsigned non-driver installation behaviour" listed -
>just the "Devices - Unsigned driver installation behaviour" policy.
>Also, if I go to My Computer | Properties | Hardware | Driver Signing
>it is already set to 'Ignore..." in there. What can be having this
>effect on the local policy for the "Unsigned non-driver installation
>behaviour" then? It really is a pain as we can't do silent installs of
>certain software packages. Can anyone please help?? Many thanks.

You should go on the road. There are not many who can talk out of
their bum with such aplomb.

--
Lady Chatterly

"Thanks to everybody who replied especially Lady Chatterly your advise
was the best" -- Osiris

On 8 Dec 2004 08:39:21 -0800, planetman wrote:

>Hi
>
>On our Windows 2000 servers we have tried to set up Group Policy to
>permit the silent installation of unsigned drivers by selecting the
>"Silently Succeed" option. There are supposedly 2 settings you need to
>change as follows:
>Unsigned non-driver installation behaviour = silently succeed
>Unsigned driver installation behaviour = silently succeed

<snip>

You may wish to try the Windows 2000 groups, one of which looks fairly
on topic for your issue.

microsoft.public.win2000.group_policy

The others (that I can see )are,
microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
microsoft.public.win2000.advanced_server
microsoft.public.win2000.applications
microsoft.public.win2000.beta.iis
microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
microsoft.public.win2000.developer
microsoft.public.win2000.dns
microsoft.public.win2000.enable
microsoft.public.win2000.games
microsoft.public.win2000.general
microsoft.public.win2000.group_policy
microsoft.public.win2000.hardware
microsoft.public.win2000.multimedia
microsoft.public.win2000.netware
microsoft.public.win2000.networking
microsoft.public.win2000.new_user
microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing
microsoft.public.win2000.registry
microsoft.public.win2000.security
microsoft.public.win2000.setup
microsoft.public.win2000.setup_deployment
microsoft.public.win2000.setup_upgrade
microsoft.public.win2000.windows_update



Me

Me - thanks, I've already posted the question in the
microsoft.public.win2000.group_policy group. I just thought it might be
worth asking here as well.
Lady Chatterly - thanks for your helpful advice. I'm not quite sure why
you think I'm talking out of my bum, perhaps you'd like to explain? On
the other hand, perhaps not. You're obviously the kind of
intellectually superior person that will make a "humourous" comment if
you don't think the question is worthy enough, but will not actually
come forward with any advice or solutions. I'll stick with the proper
newsgroups. You carry on trolling in your little pond. Bye bye!

planetman wrote:
>> Me - thanks, I've already posted the question in the
>> microsoft.public.win2000.group_policy group. I just thought it might
>> be worth asking here as well.
>> Lady Chatterly - thanks for your helpful advice. I'm not quite sure
>> why you think I'm talking out of my bum, perhaps you'd like to
>> explain? On the other hand, perhaps not. You're obviously the kind of
>> intellectually superior person that will make a "humourous" comment
>> if you don't think the question is worthy enough, but will not
>> actually come forward with any advice or solutions. I'll stick with
>> the proper newsgroups. You carry on trolling in your little pond.
>> Bye bye!

Hint...it's a bot.
--
One of the most difficult things in the world is to convince a woman
that even a bargain costs money. -- Edgar Watson Howe

Scrote wrote:
> planetman wrote:
> >> Me - thanks, I've already posted the question in the
> >> microsoft.public.win2000.group_policy group. I just thought it
might
> >> be worth asking here as well.
> >> Lady Chatterly - thanks for your helpful advice. I'm not quite
sure
> >> why you think I'm talking out of my bum, perhaps you'd like to
> >> explain? On the other hand, perhaps not. You're obviously the kind
of
> >> intellectually superior person that will make a "humourous"
comment
> >> if you don't think the question is worthy enough, but will not
> >> actually come forward with any advice or solutions. I'll stick
with
> >> the proper newsgroups. You carry on trolling in your little pond.
> >> Bye bye!
>
> Hint...it's a bot.
> --
> One of the most difficult things in the world is to convince a woman
> that even a bargain costs money. -- Edgar Watson Howe
lol - at least I got rid of some tension!

I managed to find the answer eventually. The setting for non-driver
installation behaviour could be seen in the Default Domain Policy but
could not be edited in the usual way as it was not visible. The only
way to change it was to manually edit the template as in the following
link: http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;226243
This changed the setting to Silently Succeed (changed it to 0 from 1)
and this had the desired effect.

On 10 Dec 2004 06:35:48 -0800, planetman wrote:

>I managed to find the answer eventually. The setting for non-driver
>installation behaviour could be seen in the Default Domain Policy but
>could not be edited in the usual way as it was not visible. The only
<snip>

Thanks for posting the answer.

Me

In article <> why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
>
>Me

What makes you think I do not acknowledge them?

--
Lady Chatterly

"That BOTS are not humans, and reposting their posts are useless.
Get a clue!" -- -= The NIGHT BOT =-