Security Tab in XP Home

How can I get the security tab on the disk properties to
display?

"Rio" wrote in message =
...
How can I get the security tab on the disk properties to=20
display?

In Home you cannot, except by using a Safe mode (F8) boot.

--=20
Roger=20

Change file system to NTFS then reboot to Safe Mode:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...EN-US;Q307286&

--
Jupiter Jones
An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp
Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.


"Rio" wrote in message
...
How can I get the security tab on the disk properties to
display?

"Roger Abell [MVP]" squirted these wordjisms deep
inside the bumtube of the news**** in
:

"Rio" wrote in message
...
How can I get the security tab on the disk properties to
display?

In Home you cannot, except by using a Safe mode (F8) boot.


You can, if you download and install the Security Configuration tool from
the MS site. I think it was intended for NT but works fine on NT home.
Saves booting into Safe mood every time I want to change permissions.

--
Iain McLaren
*********************************
A. Top posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
************************************************** **

Yes, I am aware of that hack route.
Not only is it not supported by MS, IMO it is risky=20
since that download is ancient and the NTFS security=20
permissions engine had a history of ACL corruption=20
in NT 4 when that was first released.
For these reasons I do not mention/recommend it.

--=20
Roger=20
"Tomothy Quntington-Flitoris" =
wrote in message =
48.16...
"Roger Abell [MVP]" squirted these wordjisms deep
inside the bumtube of the news**** in
:=20
=20
"Rio" wrote in message
...=20
How can I get the security tab on the disk properties to=20
display?
=20
In Home you cannot, except by using a Safe mode (F8) boot.
=20
=20
You can, if you download and install the Security Configuration tool =
from=20
the MS site. I think it was intended for NT but works fine on NT home. =

Saves booting into Safe mood every time I want to change permissions.
=20
--=20
Iain McLaren
*********************************
A. Top posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
************************************************** **

"Roger Abell [MVP]" squirted these wordjisms deep
inside the bumtube of the news**** in news:uQK87s0EDHA.2596
@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:

Yes, I am aware of that hack route.
Not only is it not supported by MS, IMO it is risky
since that download is ancient and the NTFS security
permissions engine had a history of ACL corruption
in NT 4 when that was first released.
For these reasons I do not mention/recommend it.


Fair enough, and I accept that it's not recommended. However it does allows
me to do what I want, which is to see and modify the permissions at file
level within XP Home without having to boot into Safe Mode.

If there are any problems due to NTFS file corruption I haven't encountered
them.

--
Iain McLaren
*********************************
A. Top posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
************************************************** **

Iain,

Points taken, and thanks for confirming that you thus far=20
have not encountered problems. So far no one has said=20
that they have had issues. The ACL corruption issue most=20
often happened when there was an explicit Deny on the=20
object, which may be something that is not often done. =20
I have nothing against and understand the convenience you=20
find in this. But due to the questionable legality, potential=20
for ACL corruption, etc. I avoid mention, leaving it to others.

--=20
Roger=20

"Tomothy Quntington-Flitoris" =
wrote in message =
8.16...
"Roger Abell [MVP]" squirted these wordjisms deep=20
inside the bumtube of the news**** in news:uQK87s0EDHA.2596
@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:
=20
Yes, I am aware of that hack route.
Not only is it not supported by MS, IMO it is risky=20
since that download is ancient and the NTFS security=20
permissions engine had a history of ACL corruption=20
in NT 4 when that was first released.
For these reasons I do not mention/recommend it.
=20
=20
Fair enough, and I accept that it's not recommended. However it does =
allows=20
me to do what I want, which is to see and modify the permissions at =
file=20
level within XP Home without having to boot into Safe Mode.=20
=20
If there are any problems due to NTFS file corruption I haven't =
encountered=20
them.
=20
--=20
Iain McLaren
*********************************
A. Top posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
************************************************** **

"Roger Abell [MVP]" squirted these wordjisms deep
inside the bumtube of the news**** in news:#vIuj83EDHA.2704
@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:

Iain,

Points taken, and thanks for confirming that you thus far
have not encountered problems. So far no one has said
that they have had issues. The ACL corruption issue most
often happened when there was an explicit Deny on the
object, which may be something that is not often done.
I have nothing against and understand the convenience you
find in this. But due to the questionable legality, potential
for ACL corruption, etc. I avoid mention, leaving it to others.


Accepted on all counts. I seem to recall we discussed this before very
briefly on here.

In case it is of any help to anyone, I have set some explicit deny
permissions, both on whole drive volumes and also certain folders and files
that I don't want monkeyed around with - nothing untoward has occurred but
I would certainly say that my setup isn't the most rigorous of testing
environments.

For that reason, I agree that anything I say on the subject should be taken
with extreme caution, and not used on a production system - since whatever
works for me may very well not work well for someone else.

--
Iain McLaren
*********************************
A. Top posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
************************************************** **

"Tomothy Quntington-Flitoris" =
wrote in message =
48.16...
"Roger Abell [MVP]" squirted these wordjisms deep=20
inside the bumtube of the news**** in news:#vIuj83EDHA.2704
@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:
=20
Iain,
=20
Points taken, and thanks for confirming that you thus far=20
have not encountered problems. So far no one has said=20
that they have had issues. The ACL corruption issue most=20
often happened when there was an explicit Deny on the=20
object, which may be something that is not often done. =20
I have nothing against and understand the convenience you=20
find in this. But due to the questionable legality, potential=20
for ACL corruption, etc. I avoid mention, leaving it to others.
=20
=20
Accepted on all counts. I seem to recall we discussed this before very =

briefly on here.=20
=20
In case it is of any help to anyone, I have set some explicit deny=20
permissions, both on whole drive volumes and also certain folders and =
files=20
that I don't want monkeyed around with - nothing untoward has occurred =
but=20
I would certainly say that my setup isn't the most rigorous of testing =

environments.=20
=20
For that reason, I agree that anything I say on the subject should be =
taken=20
with extreme caution, and not used on a production system - since =
whatever=20
works for me may very well not work well for someone else.
=20

Well, at this point the thread represents a rather complete=20
set of disclaimers and warning, it would seem.

When this first appeared for NT 4 as an optional install in=20
Service Pack 4 it left a rather unsavory taste. By the time=20
Service Pack 5 was released for NT 4 it seemed that many=20
of the issues had been cleared up, at least to the point that=20
the ACL editor would detect misordered ACLs and offer=20
to fix them rather than running over them and worsening=20
things. Even to the present day there are some things, such=20
as the Front Page Server Extensions, which will misorder=20
ACLs under circumstances (where there are deny ACEs
and inherited ACEs), which has allowed me to see that=20
the ACL editor does still handle the problem gracefully=20
(at least in that case). =20

So, if there is a lesson from this it would be to try to have=20
the most recent version of the bits rather than the install=20
from the original Service Pack 4 release.
--=20
Roger

Since it is annoying to always boot to save mode or use cacls I developed a
context menu extension wich brings up the security dialog on XP Home too (in
normal mode). To install the extension administrator rights are required.

Page (gernam only): http://www.fajo.de/de/sware/xpfse/

Direct download link:
http://www.fajo.de/sware/files/xpfse...1_Setup_EN.exe

Usage implies that NTFS is used ;o)

Regards
Falk John

"Rio" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
How can I get the security tab on the disk properties to
display?