This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Login
    « My hometown has just been dissed on the Colbert Report | Main | You know it's going to be a bad day... »
    Tuesday
    Mar182008

    Vendor without a clue.

    It truly frightens me that in 2008 there are application vendors out there who claim that their products integrate with Active Directory, and yet have so little understanding of the service with which they claim to work hand-in-hand.

    A few gems from Vendor name withheld to protect the lives of the innocent documentation that I'm marking up for an afternoon meeting:

    (All emphasis and comments mine.)

    • "Because the global catalog does not contain all of the attributes, configuring the AD authentication provider to look at the GC may not always be a feasible solution."  ...the hell?  I mean, who gets paid to actually write that?
    • "In an ideal environment, the password of the user account used to extend the Active Directory schema would never change...Recommendation: it would be ideal if a Vendor user account was created with Schema Admin rights, with a password that is set to never expire."  In what universe is that an ideal environment?  Unless by 'ideal' you mean 'happy utopian parallel universe in which everyone loves each other, malicious users don't exist and nobody ever dies.'
    • Before configuring your Microsoft Active Directory Server for use with Vendor products on Windows 2003, a modification must be made to Active Directory in order to allow anonymous access to the directory server. This was the default behaviour for Windows 2000."  Yeah...and?  There's a reason it's not the default anymore, and hasn't been for five frakking years!

    This is going to be a really fun meeting.

    Reader Comments (1)

    I seem to recall a certain Cisco application that they acquired from another vendor that only supported a single instance of the application *per forest* because it was hard coded to use a specific group name and there were hard coded checks to ensure that the service account was in the Domain Admins group.

    Not in my forest you don't!

    But seriously, it is one of the most common audit findings when we run an AD Health Check - persistent service or user accounts in the Schema Admins group.
    March 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrad Turner

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Post:
     
    All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.