@scottalanmiller said in Everyone is not a "Security Group":
@DustinB3403 said in Everyone is not a "Security Group":
@scottalanmiller said in Everyone is not a "Security Group":
@DustinB3403 said in Everyone is not a "Security Group":
My argument was in regards to the people I work around and their broken mindset of "everyone needs access" or "just add the everyone group".
My OP I thought was very clear in that I was ranting a bit. But ok...
Well, in those cases, who should be blocked from access, do you feel?
By default I would say "not everyone".
Allow even an existing security group. But the "everyone" security group is not providing any security.
Might as well allow anonymous access.
Everyone does mean anonymous. This might just be a language thing. Someone outside of IT should not be aware of the "everyone" group. If they are saying "everyone" they should not be meaning that group, they probably just mean "Domain Users."
Everyone does not include anonymous. It is just about everything up to that point including guest and service accounts: https://blog.varonis.com/the-difference-between-everyone-and-authenticated-users/.