«

Correct...They do not.

--
..rev

www.askthemct.com
..
"John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> wrote in message
news:%...
>
> "kpg*" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A2564A5D41D1ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248. 16...
>>> But what about a process that runs even without a user
>>> logged in such as a service? Well, since no user has in fact logged
>>> on, it would appear that computer configuration settings are the only
>>> settings that have been applied.
>>
>> ...but don't services require the specification of a user account
>> to run under?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, but most services run as the local system, and those that do have
> domain or local user specified as their logon simply authenticate, they do
> not process group policy (that I know of) since they are not an
> interactive logon.
>
> Of course, now you've given me something else to test
>
> John R
>

"John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> prattled ceaselessly in
news::

>
> "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
> <snip>
>
> ^^^
> <Realizes his "inner-geek" is showing again>
>
>
>



--
Catwalker
MCNGP #43
www.mcngp.com
"Definitely not wearing any underwear."

FYI - Its good your GPO's don't do both. No GPO should configure user and
computer settings. It should always be one or the other.

--
..rev

www.askthemct.com
..
"John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard, Inc.]" <> wrote
> in message news:...
>> "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> wrote in message
>> news:#:
>>
>
>> You just take the fun out of everything.
>
> Sorry, Michael, but I really do agree with the OP, and I have seen it
> documented both ways as he stated. And I agree with your post as well, I
> was not trying to disagree with you.
>
> I forget who was asked if they wear boxers or briefs, and they answered
> 'depends'. That caused a good laugh because the answer was taken
> differently than it was intended. I have found that the same situation
> applies to this OPs question. IMHO, you have to look at the setting
> itself, what the setting applies to, and then of course take loopback
> processing into account. If the setting is to a service, or sometimes
> even to an application, if that application or service starts up prior to
> a user logon, it will be the computer configuration that will take
> priority unless it is a registry setting that the application queries
> periodically like a SAV or ForeFront Client Security registry setting,
> unless loopback processing is specfied in replace or merge mode, unless,
> unless, unless. The fact that MS even designed a loopback feature to allow
> for the computer configuration settings to override the user settings
> would indicate that it is the user settings that take precedence, but that
> isn't always necessary.
>
> That is what I found in my testing. I was thoroughly confused on this
> subject and actually spent about three weeks just changing two different
> gpos, rebooting, running RSoP, etc, until I came to the answer 'depends'.
> I don't remember if I was asked any questions on the test about conflicts,
> but I do know that I was asked about loopback processing.
>
> Fortunately, our organization uses GPOs sparingly, and almost all GPOs
> have only user or computer settings, not both. RSoP is really the best
> tool to test with prior to assigning a GPO to a production OU, and I use
> that extensively.
>
> John R
>

".rev [askthemct.com]" <> wrote in message
news:u$:

> FYI - Its good your GPO's don't do both. No GPO should configure user and
> computer settings. It should always be one or the other.
>
> --
> .rev
>
> www.askthemct.com
> .
> "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> wrote in message
> news:...
> >
> > "Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard, Inc.]" <> wrote
> > in message news:...
> >> "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> wrote in message
> >> news:#:
> >>
> >
> >> You just take the fun out of everything.
> >
> > Sorry, Michael, but I really do agree with the OP, and I have seen it
> > documented both ways as he stated. And I agree with your post as well, I
> > was not trying to disagree with you.
> >
> > I forget who was asked if they wear boxers or briefs, and they answered
> > 'depends'. That caused a good laugh because the answer was taken
> > differently than it was intended. I have found that the same situation
> > applies to this OPs question. IMHO, you have to look at the setting
> > itself, what the setting applies to, and then of course take loopback
> > processing into account. If the setting is to a service, or sometimes
> > even to an application, if that application or service starts up prior to
> > a user logon, it will be the computer configuration that will take
> > priority unless it is a registry setting that the application queries
> > periodically like a SAV or ForeFront Client Security registry setting,
> > unless loopback processing is specfied in replace or merge mode, unless,
> > unless, unless. The fact that MS even designed a loopback feature to allow
> > for the computer configuration settings to override the user settings
> > would indicate that it is the user settings that take precedence, but that
> > isn't always necessary.
> >
> > That is what I found in my testing. I was thoroughly confused on this
> > subject and actually spent about three weeks just changing two different
> > gpos, rebooting, running RSoP, etc, until I came to the answer 'depends'.
> > I don't remember if I was asked any questions on the test about conflicts,
> > but I do know that I was asked about loopback processing.
> >
> > Fortunately, our organization uses GPOs sparingly, and almost all GPOs
> > have only user or computer settings, not both. RSoP is really the best
> > tool to test with prior to assigning a GPO to a production OU, and I use
> > that extensively.
> >
> > John R
> >

Agreed. Besides, I stopped using GPOs, or any policies for that matter.
I turned the server room into a dungeon and punish. Thanks Cat for the
ideas over the months.

--
Michael D. Alligood, MCITP, MCTS, MCSA, MCDST
The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
CertGuard, Inc. - http://www.certguard.com/
Microsoft Exam Security Newsgroup -
microsoft.public.certification.exam.security

"Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard, Inc.]" <>
prattled ceaselessly in news:#:


>
> Agreed. Besides, I stopped using GPOs, or any policies for that
> matter. I turned the server room into a dungeon and punished myself.
> Thanks Cat for the ideas over the months.
>

IFYPFY. And you're welcome.

--
Catwalker
MCNGP #43
www.mcngp.com
"Definitely not wearing any underwear."

"catwalker63" <_catwalker63_@hotmamamail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A25BB593772Bcatwalker63athotmail@216.196. 97.136:

> "Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard, Inc.]" <>
> prattled ceaselessly in news:#:
>
>
> >
> > Agreed. Besides, I stopped using GPOs, or any policies for that
> > matter. I turned the server room into a dungeon and punished myself.
> > Thanks Cat for the ideas over the months.
> >
>
> IFYPFY. And you're welcome.
>
> --
> Catwalker
> MCNGP #43
> www.mcngp.com
> "Definitely not wearing any underwear."

Hmm... even better.
--
Michael D. Alligood, MCITP, MCTS, MCSA, MCDST
The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
CertGuard, Inc. - http://www.certguard.com/
Microsoft Exam Security Newsgroup -
microsoft.public.certification.exam.security