Ureader.com  
Microsoft software help and Community
   home   |   control panel login   |   archive   |  
 
Exchange
2000.active.directory
2000.admin
2000.announcements
2000.app.conversion
2000.applications
2000.clients
2000.clustering
2000.connectivity
2000.development
2000.documentation
2000.general
2000.information.store
2000.interop
2000.kms
2000.misc
2000.protocols
2000.realtime.collabo.
2000.setup
2000.transport
2000.win2000
admin
application.conversion
applications
clients
clustering
connectivity
design
development
misc
mobility
setup
tools
  
 
date: 25 Apr 2006 05:11:11 -0700,    group: microsoft.public.exchange2000.admin        back       


2003 Minimum rights required to be able to create an id but not add yourself to the Mailbox Rights   
Apologies for the repost but I am really interested if others can
duplicate this. It seems like a bug but way to obvious to have been
missed surely.....

---

I have been trying to determine the absolute minimum rights required to
allow specified users to create new accounts and mailboxes but not have
the permissions to be able to then grant themselves access to that
mailbox.

My testing was done using a test account within a single OU. The test
account was only given the "right" to create and delete users within
that particular OU object (and any child objects) using the Advanced
permissions page of that OU. It was also given the following special
permissions to "User Objects" (again within that OU's advanced
properties):

Object Permissions:
     Reset Password

Properties:
     Write Logon Information
     Write Account restrictions

At the Exchange Organisation level I granted the account "Exchange View
Only Administrator"

Using the Exchange 2003 admin tools (because that is just what I
happened to have installed) I created several new users with mailboxes
on both Exchange 2000 and 2003 servers. Once these were created and
left for a suitable period of time for AD to become aware of them I
emailed each mailbox to cause the mailbox permissions to become
populated.

Then using the same account that created them I opened up their
properties and accessed the mailbox permissions via the "Mailbox
Rights" button and attempted to give myself "Full Mailbox Access"
("myself" being the account which created them not my personal
account).
On the 2000 servers (SP3 + Aug 04 Rollup) I was greeted by a:

"Unable to save permission changes on <username>

Access is denied"

 message when I attempted to click the "Apply" button or click "OK".
This was what I was expecting to happen. After canceling out of the
permissions box and user object box then reopening both I confirmed
that none of the changes had been saved to the permissions.

However on the 2003 boxes it gave no such error and simply closed the
permissions box. When I clicked on the main user object properties OK
button after that I got:

"Access Denied

Facility: LDAP Provider
ID no: 80070005
Microsoft Active Directory - Exchange Extension"

This looks like it had done the same thing as the first message (with a
somewhat less friendly message). However it turns out that the changes
to the permissions had already been made and although I had to cancel
this second box as ok would continually produce this message. I was
able to add  the account to Outlook and access any mail within it.

One interesting thing is that it only seems to be possible to grant
oneself access like this to accounts created by the account your using
to grant the access.

I have tried this on Exchange 2003 vanilla, SP1 and SP2 with the same
results each time.

It'd be great if someone else could try this and at the very least
confirm my findings and prove it is not exclusive to our AD setup or
tell me how to fix it. Please include anything non-standard about your
set up. For example any other permissions that my test admin accounts
get are inherited (such as read properties permissions so they can see
all the user object attributes).

All the steps I have done are listed above, however as I have tried to
answer any questions I thought might get asked as I went along it may
be a bit wordy and hard to follow. So if you want a step-by-step list
of what I did I can do that.

If these findings are confirmed by others then this situation is a
little worrying from a security point of view. All constructive
responses appreciated :-)

Many thanks
date: 25 Apr 2006 05:11:11 -0700   author:   unknown

Google
 
Web ureader.com


    COPYRIGHT 2007, YARDI TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, ALL RIGHT RESERVE  |   contact us