Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Bug in server 2003 DNS policy setting |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 18 May 2005 14:55:00 -0500 |
IPCONFIG reads from the traditional portion of the Registry where TCP/IP settings are stored. The GPO setting you're referring to will store the info in a different location. So this isn't a "bug" but simply the function of how IPCONFIG works. It's always behaved this way; it's nothing specific to 2003 SP1 or XP SP2. It won't be changed unless a sufficient number of customers complain. Someone else mentioned the DNS Search Suffix Lists also showing this behavior when viewed via IPCONFIG. This is for the same reason as above.
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.
-- 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. --
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Recovery Console Post SP1, Russ |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Surprise! Windows Updates, Matthew Mucker |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Bug in server 2003 DNS policy setting, James D. Stallard |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Bug in server 2003 DNS policy setting, Jeremy Brooks |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |