Seen this statement in an MS textbook test and having tried it out it
is a correct statement:

d. The User Accounts tool allows users to delete, create, or remove
their individual passwords.

Hence a limited user can remove their own password to make their
tiresome logging on easier. Easier for everyone of course who wants to
have a look around other peoples files! I tried it and its true. Why?
Can an Administrator prevent this happening somehow for all his users
in a way I've missed?

Confused

I don't think that will work in an Active Directory domain. There is also a
security option in Local Security Policy - local policies/security options
for interactive logon:do not require control-alt-delete that you can set to
disabled which should also prevent such logon from happening. --- Steve


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Seen this statement in an MS textbook test and having tried it out it
> is a correct statement:
>
> d. The User Accounts tool allows users to delete, create, or remove
> their individual passwords.
>
> Hence a limited user can remove their own password to make their
> tiresome logging on easier. Easier for everyone of course who wants to
> have a look around other peoples files! I tried it and its true. Why?
> Can an Administrator prevent this happening somehow for all his users
> in a way I've missed?
>
> Confused

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:03:57 -0600, "Steven L Umbach"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I don't think that will work in an Active Directory domain. There is also a
>security option in Local Security Policy - local policies/security options
>for interactive logon:do not require control-alt-delete that you can set to
>disabled which should also prevent such logon from happening. --- Steve
>
>
Thanks Steven, I thought it was somewhere
Here's an even more dumfounding one:

"A workgroup becomes impractical in environments with more than 100
computers."

With three other statements we are asked to choose the true ones.
Apparently this is one of the false ones, which goes against
everything I have learned and practised on-the-job over years. What
would possess anyone to go for a workgroup if they had 100
workstations? Apart from saving a few bucks on server hardware and
software, which they would lose through the inefficiency of a
cumbersome workgroup

Confused

A workgroup becomes impractical probably at more than a dozen computers in
most cases. There becomes a point where the cost implementing a domain is
less than the cost of maintaining a workgroup over the long run not only in
dollars and time but in better security. --- Steve MCSE NT4.0/Windows
2000/Windows 2003:Security.


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:03:57 -0600, "Steven L Umbach"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I don't think that will work in an Active Directory domain. There is also
>>a
>>security option in Local Security Policy - local policies/security options
>>for interactive logon:do not require control-alt-delete that you can set
>>to
>>disabled which should also prevent such logon from happening. --- Steve
>>
>>
> Thanks Steven, I thought it was somewhere
> Here's an even more dumfounding one:
>
> "A workgroup becomes impractical in environments with more than 100
> computers."
>
> With three other statements we are asked to choose the true ones.
> Apparently this is one of the false ones, which goes against
> everything I have learned and practised on-the-job over years. What
> would possess anyone to go for a workgroup if they had 100
> workstations? Apart from saving a few bucks on server hardware and
> software, which they would lose through the inefficiency of a
> cumbersome workgroup
>
> Confused

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:36:10 -0600, "Steven L Umbach"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>A workgroup becomes impractical probably at more than a dozen computers in
>most cases. There becomes a point where the cost implementing a domain is
>less than the cost of maintaining a workgroup over the long run not only in
>dollars and time but in better security. --- Steve MCSE NT4.0/Windows
>2000/Windows 2003:Security.
>
Thanks Steven thats what I was hoping to hear. I know this thread is
now deserving of a different newsgroup but the question on "100 PC's
in a workgroup" comes from the MS own MCSE Study Guide 2002. I hope
the new ones are better, when I am convinced I know the material it is
a bit disturbing to find errors like that (and others, I've got a
list!).
I know there are various "practice test" firms selling carazy answers
but to get them from MS themselves makes us wonder what to expect in
an exam.
If someone points me to the best ngroup or forum for this I'll migrate
my queries!,

Confused

I have read scores of MCSE books from all different publishers and I have
seen errors in every one. Some having a fairly large number and some very
few. I have found that for the MCSE 2003 track the Microsoft Press books are
generally very good and maybe even the best. Keep in mind though that these
are written by independent authors and are not really Microsoft
documentation as compared to Microsoft white papers and deployment kits. I
have also found that Microsoft documentation and white papers are really top
notch these days - particularly for Windows 2003 and XP Pro so be sure to
supplement your studies with them. Mark Minasi's Mastering Windows 2003
Server is a must read in my opinion for anyone studying for MCSA/MCSE even
though it is not a study guide. The Windows Security Resource Kit second
edition is another book I highly recommend to those trying to become
certified.

I suggest that you post future questions in the appropriate newsgroup and
not the MCSE/MCSA newsgroups as they are usually less then helpful. For
instance if you have a Group Policy question post in a Group Policy
newsgroup to increase your chances of getting a fast and accurate answer. I
would also mention that you are a student studying and working on a practice
network. I think you will find posters willing to help and get great advice.
Then as you learn more and have more experience you can also be one to help
give advice. --- Steve


http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...deploykit.mspx ---
Windows 2003 Server Deployment Kit.
http://www.bookpool.com/sm/0735621748 --- Windows Security Resource Kit
second edition

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:36:10 -0600, "Steven L Umbach"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>A workgroup becomes impractical probably at more than a dozen computers in
>>most cases. There becomes a point where the cost implementing a domain is
>>less than the cost of maintaining a workgroup over the long run not only
>>in
>>dollars and time but in better security. --- Steve MCSE NT4.0/Windows
>>2000/Windows 2003:Security.
>>
> Thanks Steven thats what I was hoping to hear. I know this thread is
> now deserving of a different newsgroup but the question on "100 PC's
> in a workgroup" comes from the MS own MCSE Study Guide 2002. I hope
> the new ones are better, when I am convinced I know the material it is
> a bit disturbing to find errors like that (and others, I've got a
> list!).
> I know there are various "practice test" firms selling carazy answers
> but to get them from MS themselves makes us wonder what to expect in
> an exam.
> If someone points me to the best ngroup or forum for this I'll migrate
> my queries!,
>
> Confused