OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
GPO Problem with 2003 DC's and 2000 Member servers

From: Tim Rice (rice0009MC.DUKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Jan 31 2004 - 10:23:58 CST

I'd be happy for someone to tell me I'm a fool *and* point me toward a
solution ...

One of our NetAdmins is reporting a problem trying to get PGO's to work on
two Win2000 Member servers. His Domain Controlers are 2003, and our Root
DC's are also 2003.

He is getting the following EventLog messages ...

>Event Type: Warning
>Event Source: SceCli
>Event Category: None
>Event ID: 1202
>Date: 1/30/2004
>Time: 4:07:03 PM
>User: N/A
>Computer: <SERVERNAME>
>Description:
>Security policies are propagated with warning. 0x4b8 : An extended error
has occurred.
>Please look for more details in TroubleShooting section in Security Help.

and

>Event Type: Error
>Event Source: Userenv
>Event Category: None
>Event ID: 1000
>Date: 1/30/2004
>Time: 4:07:03 PM
>User: NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
>Computer: <SERVERNAME>
>Description:
>The Group Policy client-side extension Security was passed flags (17) and
returned a failure status code of (1208).

They are the first Non-Root Win2003 DC's we've had put into service, and we
can't find much in the way of documentation on this error. The Win2000
servers are not picking up or implementing the GPO's properly.

As a test a Win2003 server was added to the Domain and it picks up the PGO
and implements the flawlessly. It seems to be a Win2000 interaction issue
with the Win2003 DC's. Unfortunately the member servers in question must
be Win2000 due to vendor limitations.

Can someone point us in the right direction for this one?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tim Rice
Network Systems Analyst
Department of Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine

-----
NTBugtraq Editor's Note:

Most viruses these days use spoofed email addresses. As such, using an Anti-Virus product which automatically notifies the perceived sender of a message it believes is infected may well cause more harm than good. Someone who did not actually send you a virus may receive the notification and scramble their support staff to find an infection which never existed in the first place. Suggest such notifications be disabled by whomever is responsible for your AV, or at least that the idea is considered.
-----