No Explicit Reference to SYSTEM in User Rights?

I'm noticing in the User Rights in a default install of Windows XP that
there are no explicit references to SYSTEM, even when SYSTEM really does
have a user right. Is this because the OS is given these rights no matter
whether you want them to have them or not? I suppose there is no harm in
explicitly adding in SYSTEM on these user rights, just as a form of
documentation?

--
Will

System always gets Administrators in its user token, so any grant
to Administrators is a grant to System.

"Will" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dLSdnc9sZu706zXZnZ2dnUVZ_s-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm noticing in the User Rights in a default install of Windows XP that
> there are no explicit references to SYSTEM, even when SYSTEM really does
> have a user right. Is this because the OS is given these rights no
> matter
> whether you want them to have them or not? I suppose there is no harm
> in
> explicitly adding in SYSTEM on these user rights, just as a form of
> documentation?
>
> --
> Will
>
>

PS. There are explicit grants to System however, but easy to not notice.
Look for example at NTFS grants on System Volume Information, or
registry at HKLM\Security.

"Will" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dLSdnc9sZu706zXZnZ2dnUVZ_s-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm noticing in the User Rights in a default install of Windows XP that
> there are no explicit references to SYSTEM, even when SYSTEM really does
> have a user right. Is this because the OS is given these rights no
> matter
> whether you want them to have them or not? I suppose there is no harm
> in
> explicitly adding in SYSTEM on these user rights, just as a form of
> documentation?
>
> --
> Will
>
>

Right, I do see the grants on file system objects. That's what made it all
the more strange that they would have any grants to SYSTEM be implicit on
User Rights.

--
Will

"Roger Abell [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u46jeb$(E-Mail Removed)...
> PS. There are explicit grants to System however, but easy to not notice.
> Look for example at NTFS grants on System Volume Information, or
> registry at HKLM\Security.

"Will" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:WZ-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Right, I do see the grants on file system objects. That's what made it
> all
> the more strange that they would have any grants to SYSTEM be implicit on
> User Rights.
>

I think we are playing language tag again, as I don't understand "any grants
to
System be implicit on User Rights". System is a (hidden) member of
Adminsitrators,
that is all (note: this is not user rights). So, where System but not
Administrators
has need for a grant, then you will see it granted. Apparently, over time
people
have come to not know of this however and so you will find many using side
by
side identical grants to System and to Administrators.


>
> "Roger Abell [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u46jeb$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> PS. There are explicit grants to System however, but easy to not notice.
>> Look for example at NTFS grants on System Volume Information, or
>> registry at HKLM\Security.
>
>