Re: Bug in server 2003 DNS policy setting

Tommaso, et al

Clients also behave this way when using similar policy settings to control
the DNS Suffix Search List. I have noticed this behaviour on a variety of
Windows clients and servers, with Windows 2000 and 2003 Active Directory and
Windows 2000/XP clients.

The Windows 2000/XP clients were at SP4 and SP1 respectively, and with this
in mind, I don't believe it is related to XPSP2 or the specific version of
Active Directory.

Regards

James D. Stallard
Microsoft and Networks Infrastructure Technical Architect
Leafgrove Limited
Web: www.leafgrove.com
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: +44 (0) 7979 49 8880


-----Original Message-----
From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tommaso Calosi -
SYSMIC SRL
Sent: 02 May 2005 17:26
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bug in server 2003 DNS policy setting

Enviroment:

Server: Windows server 2003 Domain.SP1
Clients: XP Pro SP2

Symptoms:

In group policy you can set up a setting under computer configuration >
Administrative templates > Network > DNS client > DNS servers so that the
computers the policy is applied to will be configured with the specified dns
servers. When the policy is applied, you run ipconfig /all on the client and
you will be displayed the original ( before the policy was applied ) DNS
configuration however when you run nslookup the DNS server used is the one
defined in the policy. Therefore the DNS displayed in the configuration is
different from the one used for name resolution.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
                      Tommaso Calosi
                      System Engineer
                          SysMic SRL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


--
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.
--

--
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.
--