Problems with Joining Mac computers to AD infrastructure


Recommended Posts

Sometimes not many, sometimes countless. Really need some more information on what you're trying to achieve here because various scenarios can result in different issues.

 

Are you hoping to just use it for authentication? Are you expecting it to behave like any other computer object in AD?

 

Give us something to work with :).

25 minutes ago, GrayW said:

Sometimes not many, sometimes countless.

I concur, it's really an afterthought for Apple, they've all but completely given up on enterprise integration.

 

Enforcing password policy would work though, that functions as expected on macOS, but you wont get any GPO benefits because it doesn't handle those, period.

 

If you want to properly manage Macs in your environment you'd be looking at some type of third party service, like JAMF and to some degree KACE can do some, there is also free software such as Munki that can do software/patch deployment, you could use it to push scripts to manage settings as well.

 

Hopefully that helps you in your quest.

  • Like 3

As @JaredFrost said, if you've got the resources then go for something like JAMF. It resolves a vast number of the issues that can appear when integrating Apple devices.

 

If you haven't and you're really looking for GPO like behaviour, then you're going to need to use Profile Manager (which quite honestly doesn't work half the damn time). To use that, you're going to need macOS Server running on a device that is the same version as the devices you are managing. Sometimes you can get away with being a version either side, but that just causes more issues. Unfortunately, they make macOS Server more and more useless with each update. This is where you enter the world of the "Golden Triangle".

 

I'll be honest, it's become so problematic and unstable these days that I'm currently planning the move away from macOS Server to Munki for the software and patching + Ansible/Chef for configuration management/quick setups and just having them bound to AD for the authentication.

 

It's a deep dark rabbit hole if you don't have the time and money to throw at it.

  • 2 weeks later...

If your only goal is to centrally set and control password policies for your Mac infrastructure I think you would be better served by an MDM solution. As others have mentioned good MDM products include JAMF, VMware AirWatch and Microsoft InTune. As it sounds like you already have the Microsoft stack deployed perhaps InTune would be a good fit.

 

One of the major drawbacks with Mac's in an active directory domain is the keychain. I've found that quite often users are prompted to change their password when using separate Microsoft apps such as OWA (Outlook Web Access) or RDS. When the password is reset outside of MacOS the keychain password is not updated. This seems to cause almost endless password prompts and authentication issues.

 

I'd roll out a good MDM and leave the Mac's with local logins.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • This got me thinking, would you rather a self driving car prioritise protecting its passengers or everyone else? I'd choose the one that keeps me and my kids safest. At some point, these cars have to make those choices already, don't they? Wonder if we have a way to find out what way they lean.
    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      561
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      78
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!