Subscribe to Windows IT Pro
January 03, 2002 12:00 AM

Should You Use the Authenticated Users Group?

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #23581
Rating: (29)

While reviewing the NTFS permissions on my server, I found that the Everyone group has Read and Execute permissions on many files and folders. To tighten security, some publications suggest using the Authenticated Users group instead of the Everyone group. However, I'm not sure how the Authenticated Users group is more secure. What's the difference between the Everyone group and the Authenticated Users group?

The differences between the Everyone, Users, and Authenticated Users groups aren't apparent from the group names. In a nutshell, the Everyone group is the least secure of these groups because it does indeed include everyone. The Everyone group often contains the same set of users as the Users and Authenticated Users groups. However, if you've enabled the Guest account, you'll find that users who have logged on as Guest are members of Everyone but not members of Users or Authenticated Users.

The difference between the Users and Authenticated Users groups is a bit more esoteric. After all, if all users must authenticate, aren't all users authenticated users? If they are, why do you need a different group called Authenticated Users? The answer is that not all members of the Users group are authenticated. Windows networks include the ability to have computer-to-computer connections that involve null sessions. Computers use these sessions to exchange lists of shared folders, printers, and other network resources; workstations use null sessions to connect to domain controllers (DCs) before users authenticate to the domain. (For more information about null sessions, see the Microsoft articles "Local System Account and Null Sessions in Windows NT" at http://support.microsoft.com/ default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q132679 and "Restricting Information Available to Anonymous Logon Users" at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q143474.)

Don't confuse null sessions, which are sometimes called anonymous sessions or anonymous connections, with Anonymous authentication in IIS. These concepts are completely different. Users who use Anonymous authentication to access IIS use the built-in IUSR_computername account and are members of the Everyone, Users, and Authenticated Users groups.

The inclusion of null connections in User group membership represents a security problem. Consequently, Microsoft introduced the Authenticated Users group around the time of Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 3 (SP3) to include users who have authenticated but exclude null sessions. So, to answer your question, yes—for NTFS permissions, you should use Authenticated Users instead of Everyone.

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • LinWin1
    2 years ago
    Jul 24, 2010

    Thanks for your insight and straight-forward, no-nonsense, so fluff, clear and concise writing style - so much easier to follow and interpret than over-rated, over-stated techno-speak!

    My added questions are:

    Is it really necessary to have "authenticated users" or users as groups on a small [less than 10 user] network?

    Would it be more secure to create a custom group that memics the attributes / permissions of "authenticated users", but make an obscure name that would not be looked for by the "uninvited guest?

    How would one go about making a global modification to permissions to remove undesired groups, eg,"everyone" or "users", replacing them with either "authenticated users", or a custom group name as above?

    Your comments and recommendations are appreciated,

    m

  • Chadipatrick
    4 years ago
    Apr 16, 2008

    So many fail at reading comprehension.

  • spar
    4 years ago
    Jan 19, 2008

    I also think there is something incorrect about this article.

    In the MS KB article 143474, it says that null session connections are considered ANONYMOUS LOGON users. This article says that null session connections are part of the Users group, which means ANONYMOUS LOGON is part of the Users group. I really don't think ANONYMOUS LOGON is part of the Users group. I have seen numerous MS documentation say that as of XP SP2, ANONYMOUS LOGON is no longer part of the Everyone group. If it had also been part of the Users group, they would have also mentioned the Users group in addition to the Everyone group.

  • Hunter
    5 years ago
    Oct 26, 2007

    I'm confused by this statement:

    "The inclusion of null connections in User group membership represents a security problem"

    Does this imply that a 'null' connection is considered a member of the 'Users' group?

    After reading the linked-to documents, it appears 'null' connections are used to enumerate shared network resources. This ability is configurable from the registry.

    I could not find mention of 'null' connections being associated with the 'Users' group. Nowhere did the articles indicate that a 'null' connection was a member of, or equivalent to a member of the 'Users' group.

    Instead, it appears the only security context that includes 'null' connections is the 'Everyone' group, as this association is mentioned several times in the document "Local System Account and Null Sessions in Windows NT"

    specifically:

    When this context is used to access the network, a null session is used. This produces the following context on remote computers:

    Default Owner: Everyone
    User: Everyone
    Groups: AnonymousLogon, Network

    It appears the main aspect of the 'Authenticated Users' group is that it differs from the 'Everyone' in that it does not allow 'null' connections.


    Thus, I assume that the above quoted sentence should instead read: "The inclusion of null connections in 'Everyone' group membership represents a security problem"
    notice the 'Everyone' in place of 'Users'.


    also:

    The user 'Guest', when logged on, is a member of both 'Everyone' and 'Authenticated Users', as the guest account, is indeed 'authenticated'. Accordingly, users in the 'Guests' group, when logged on, are also considered members of 'Everyone' and 'Authenticated users'

    see the bottom of the page at:
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726982.aspx
    regarding this.

  • Anonymous User
    7 years ago
    May 07, 2005

    According to the Users and Passwords dialog in Windows 2000: "Guests have the same access as members of the Users group by default, except for the Guest account which is further restricted". This might answer the previous poster's comment: if you have a user which is a member of Guests, but not "Guest", it will have the same access as a User. Only the "Guest" account itself would not be considered "Authenticated".

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.