A nearly On-Topic question

No, seriously ;-)

I'm trying to write a Group Policy to allow certain ActiveX controls to
load on machines without local admin privileges. This is what I've come
up with, but for some reason it won't work. Anyone out there ever done
this before? What have I done wrong?


************************************************************
CLASS USER
CATEGORY "Windows Components"
CATEGORY "Internet Explorer"
CATEGORY "Administrator Approved Controls"
KEYNAME
"Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet
Settings\AllowedControls"


POLICY "Allowed ActiveX"
EXPLAIN "Allows specific ActiveX to run"
PART "Promax Logon" CHECKBOX
VALUENAME {ED5BE7F4-9C97-4013-8838-48C20128D73A}
VALUEON NUMERIC 0
VALUEOFF NUMERIC 1
END PART
END POLICY


END CATEGORY ;; AdminApproved
END CATEGORY ;; Internet Explorer
END CATEGORY ;; WindowsComponents

****************************************************************

Valuename is the ID # from the control in the downloaded program files,
and the policy shows up, and is enabled in the GPO snap-in.

--
JaR
Scratching head in confusion, as usual
Remove hat to reply

Robert
Thu Feb 21 13:16:19 CST 2008

Obviously not ON topic enough...



...or maybe it was too on topic...who knows around here.

;-)

--
CG

"JaR" <jrderby@lakabux.com> wrote in message
news:uXY#Xw9cIHA.2688@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> No, seriously ;-)
>
> I'm trying to write a Group Policy to allow certain ActiveX controls to
> load on machines without local admin privileges. This is what I've come
> up with, but for some reason it won't work. Anyone out there ever done
> this before? What have I done wrong?
>
>
> ************************************************************
> CLASS USER
> CATEGORY "Windows Components"
> CATEGORY "Internet Explorer"
> CATEGORY "Administrator Approved Controls"
> KEYNAME
> "Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet
> Settings\AllowedControls"
>
>
> POLICY "Allowed ActiveX"
> EXPLAIN "Allows specific ActiveX to run"
> PART "Promax Logon" CHECKBOX
> VALUENAME {ED5BE7F4-9C97-4013-8838-48C20128D73A}
> VALUEON NUMERIC 0
> VALUEOFF NUMERIC 1
> END PART
> END POLICY
>
>
> END CATEGORY ;; AdminApproved
> END CATEGORY ;; Internet Explorer
> END CATEGORY ;; WindowsComponents
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> Valuename is the ID # from the control in the downloaded program files,
> and the policy shows up, and is enabled in the GPO snap-in.
>
> --
> JaR
> Scratching head in confusion, as usual
> Remove hat to reply

JaR
Thu Feb 21 13:37:08 CST 2008

On 2/21/2008,Robert Williams [CertGuard] had the unmitigated gall to
claim:

> Obviously not ON topic enough...
>
>
>
> ...or maybe it was too on topic...who knows around here.

Posted it in the Group Policy...errr...group as well. No response there
so far, either.

Oh well.

Nobody ever said this stuff was easy.

--
JaR
Just once would be nice
Remove hat to reply

Robert
Fri Feb 22 11:01:42 CST 2008

"JaR" <jrderby@lakabux.com> wrote in message
news:e0RTmEMdIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> On 2/21/2008,Robert Williams [CertGuard] had the unmitigated gall to
> claim:
>
>> Obviously not ON topic enough...
>>
>>
>>
>> ...or maybe it was too on topic...who knows around here.
>
> Posted it in the Group Policy...errr...group as well. No response there
> so far, either.
>
> Oh well.
>
> Nobody ever said this stuff was easy.
>
Knowing your superior google skills, I have to ask if you've been able to find
anything on the topic. There are a few pretty good scripting sites out there.

kpg*
Fri Feb 22 12:58:33 CST 2008

"JaR" <jrderby@lakabux.com> wrote in news:e0RTmEMdIHA.4140
@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

> On 2/21/2008,Robert Williams [CertGuard] had the unmitigated gall to
> claim:
>
>> Obviously not ON topic enough...
>>
>>
>>
>> ...or maybe it was too on topic...who knows around here.
>
> Posted it in the Group Policy...errr...group as well. No response there
> so far, either.
>
> Oh well.
>
> Nobody ever said this stuff was easy.


This stuff is easy.


Now you can't say that anymore.

kpg*
Fri Feb 22 14:03:30 CST 2008

"JaR" <jrderby@lakabux.com> wrote in news:uXY#Xw9cIHA.2688
@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> No, seriously ;-)
>
> I'm trying to write a Group Policy to allow certain ActiveX controls
to
> load on machines without local admin privileges. This is what I've
come
> up with, but for some reason it won't work. Anyone out there ever done
> this before? What have I done wrong?
>
>
> ************************************************************
> CLASS USER
> CATEGORY "Windows Components"
> CATEGORY "Internet Explorer"
> CATEGORY "Administrator Approved Controls"
> KEYNAME
> "Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet
> Settings\AllowedControls"
>
>
> POLICY "Allowed ActiveX"
> EXPLAIN "Allows specific ActiveX to run"
> PART "Promax Logon" CHECKBOX
> VALUENAME {ED5BE7F4-9C97-4013-8838-48C20128D73A}
> VALUEON NUMERIC 0
> VALUEOFF NUMERIC 1
> END PART
> END POLICY
>
>
> END CATEGORY ;; AdminApproved
> END CATEGORY ;; Internet Explorer
> END CATEGORY ;; WindowsComponents
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> Valuename is the ID # from the control in the downloaded program
files,
> and the policy shows up, and is enabled in the GPO snap-in.
>


OK. I'm here to help. I found this:

http://dontpokebadgers.com/axaa/

...but it look eerily like what you have already presented - perhaps
this is where you go it from?

anyway...based on this I say you're doing it right.

...so there really is no problem.

Your welcome.

kpg

kpg*
Fri Feb 22 14:09:26 CST 2008

hmmmm... seems Vista solves all your problems.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/07/AxIS/

...who would have thought.

JaR
Fri Feb 22 14:31:12 CST 2008

On 2/22/2008,kpg* had the unmitigated gall to claim:
>
> OK. I'm here to help. I found this:
>
> http://dontpokebadgers.com/axaa/
>
> ...but it look eerily like what you have already presented - perhaps
> this is where you go it from?
>

That's where I found it alright.

> anyway...based on this I say you're doing it right.

Oh, goody.

>
> ...so there really is no problem.

*whew* What a relief.

>
> Your welcome.
>

My what?


--
JaR
So why don't it fscking work?
Remove hat to reply

JaR
Fri Feb 22 14:33:05 CST 2008

On 2/22/2008,kpg* had the unmitigated gall to claim:

> hmmmm... seems Vista solves all your problems.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/07/AxIS/
>
> ...who would have thought.

*spit*

--
JaR
And so much more, too...
Remove hat to reply

JaR
Fri Feb 22 14:39:44 CST 2008

On 2/22/2008,Robert Williams [CertGuard] had the unmitigated gall to
claim:

> Knowing your superior google skills, I have to ask if you've been
> able to find anything on the topic. There are a few pretty good
> scripting sites out there.

Nope. My post to the GP group has not even gleaned a reply, either.

IDGI! I know it's prolly something stupid I'm doing.

--
JaR
But I'm learning a ton about GP!
Remove hat to reply

CBIC
Fri Feb 22 15:35:16 CST 2008


"kpg*" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4C8F06CCFFCipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...


> anyway...based on this I say you're doing it right.
>
> ...so there really is no problem.
>
> Your welcome.
>

I agree. If the script doesn't meet your requirement, then change your
requirement and take the rest of the day off.

PAJ
Fri Feb 22 15:44:25 CST 2008

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:17:29 -0800, "JaR" <jrderby@lakabux.com> wrote:

>No, seriously ;-)
>
>I'm trying to write a Group Policy to allow certain ActiveX controls to
>load on machines without local admin privileges. This is what I've come
>up with, but for some reason it won't work. Anyone out there ever done
>this before? What have I done wrong?
>
>
>************************************************************
>CLASS USER
>CATEGORY "Windows Components"
> CATEGORY "Internet Explorer"
> CATEGORY "Administrator Approved Controls"
> KEYNAME
>"Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet
>Settings\AllowedControls"
>
>
> POLICY "Allowed ActiveX"
> EXPLAIN "Allows specific ActiveX to run"
> PART "Promax Logon" CHECKBOX
> VALUENAME {ED5BE7F4-9C97-4013-8838-48C20128D73A}
> VALUEON NUMERIC 0
> VALUEOFF NUMERIC 1
> END PART
> END POLICY
>
>
> END CATEGORY ;; AdminApproved
> END CATEGORY ;; Internet Explorer
>END CATEGORY ;; WindowsComponents
>
>****************************************************************
>
>Valuename is the ID # from the control in the downloaded program files,
>and the policy shows up, and is enabled in the GPO snap-in.

Maybe it is applied and your link order is screwed up?

CBIC
Fri Feb 22 15:40:01 CST 2008


"kpg*" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4C90087BC43ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
> hmmmm... seems Vista solves all your problems.
>

Someone should punch you in the mouth for typing that.

kpg*
Fri Feb 22 16:18:15 CST 2008

"CBIC" <spam.thisbiotch@gmail.com> wrote in news:#cg1RrZdIHA.4312
@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

>
> "kpg*" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4C8F06CCFFCipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
>
>
>> anyway...based on this I say you're doing it right.
>>
>> ...so there really is no problem.
>>
>> Your welcome.
>>
>
> I agree. If the script doesn't meet your requirement, then change your
> requirement and take the rest of the day off.



There is no spoon.

kpg*
Fri Feb 22 16:19:49 CST 2008

"JaR" <jrderby@lakabux.com> wrote in news:OtCRPMZdIHA.5348
@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> I know it's prolly something stupid I'm doing.

I could not agree more.

JaR
Fri Feb 22 16:59:54 CST 2008

On 2/22/2008,kpg* had the unmitigated gall to claim:

> "JaR" <jrderby@lakabux.com> wrote in news:OtCRPMZdIHA.5348
> @TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
> > I know it's prolly something stupid I'm doing.
>
> I could not agree more.

Thanks. uh...I mean...hey!

--
JaR
Same to you
Remove hat to reply

JaR
Fri Feb 22 17:00:48 CST 2008

On 2/22/2008,CBIC had the unmitigated gall to claim:

>
> "kpg*" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4C90087BC43ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
> > hmmmm... seems Vista solves all your problems.
> >
>
> Someone should punch you in the mouth for typing that.

Hard and repeatedly!

--
JaR
Teach 'im ta agree with *me*
Remove hat to reply

JaR
Fri Feb 22 17:02:07 CST 2008

On 2/22/2008,CBIC had the unmitigated gall to claim:

>
> "kpg*" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4C8F06CCFFCipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
>
>
> > anyway...based on this I say you're doing it right.
> >
> > ...so there really is no problem.
> >
> > Your welcome.
> >
>
> I agree. If the script doesn't meet your requirement, then change
> your requirement and take the rest of the day off.

First intelligent thing I've heard all fscking day.

--
JaR
Make it so, Number One!
Remove hat to reply