Recommended Posts

Hi everyone

Here's the situation - a stand alone laptop (connected to ADSL via a router) with XP Pro SP2, CD/DVD and floppy attached, along with 2 USB 2.0 ports.

I would like to restrict users from accessing the command screen. I know that I can take <Run> from the Start menu and I can set the permissions of cmd.exe so that only Administrators can use it, but what if someone had a copy of cmd.exe on a floppy, CD or USB memory stick? Users need access to USB or floppy so disabling these (along with the CD) is not an option.

Basically, I'd like to prevent limited users from running cmd.exe, *whatever the source* of the file (i.e. they could e-mail a copy to themself). Can this be done? A lot of harm (and prying) can be done from the command screen and I'd like to prevent it. The situation is a stand alone at present, but I may increase the number of PCs to a small home network behing the router or a hub. I doubt that I'd get to the state of a large network with a server, MS Server 2003 etc.

Thank you for your time.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/454369-prevent-users-from-using-cmdexe/
Share on other sites

  John said:

You can set permissions on cmd.exe itself (Y)

Yes, but that wouldn't stop a Limited user having a copy on a floppy or USB memory stick, or e-mailing another copy of cmd.exe to himself, would it?

I've been thinking about the earlier option of using a registry tweak, for instance DisallowRun or RestrictRun. If a user had another copy of cmd.exe (as above) and renamed it, I suspect that neither of these registry tweaks would prevent it from running.

I just wonder if cmd.exe accesses some other file(s) (such as a .dll) and, if so, would altering the permission of that file help in any way? I'm thinking aloud now.

This can be done through Group Policy. Click Start and then click run and type:"gpedit.msc" without quotes to launch Group Policy. Click System under Administrative Templates in User Configuration on the left pane and select "Prevent access to the command prompt" in the main window. Click on "Enabled" and then click OK and close Group Policy.

EDIT: betasp was faster than me.

Thanks to both of you. It works fine, bringing up the command screen and it gives a warning that the Administrator has disabled it (whether I'm logged in with Limited or Administrative privileges). However, is it possible to still allow someone with Administrative privileges access to it? I guess that I could go back into GPE, reset it, do what I have to with cmd.exe and then disable it again but that seems a bit fiddly. I'm not sure just how bespoke Policies can be and how I'd set it exactly as I'd need.

Personally I would just disable cmd full stop on the machine and use an alternative command line processor which isnt subject to such restrictions, however that wont stop your errant users accessing a similar utility. It might just delay them slightly if theyre not so techical.

  Tosca said:

Thanks to both of you. It works fine, bringing up the command screen and it gives a warning that the Administrator has disabled it (whether I'm logged in with Limited or Administrative privileges). However, is it possible to still allow someone with Administrative privileges access to it? I guess that I could go back into GPE, reset it, do what I have to with cmd.exe and then disable it again but that seems a bit fiddly. I'm not sure just how bespoke Policies can be and how I'd set it exactly as I'd need.

With the modification I suggested you, all users including those with administrative privileges can't use CMD.EXE, with the exception of Administrator. If you want to use CMD.EXE and have modified Group Policy as I suggested you, open Start menu, click "All Programs", navigate to "Command Prompt" then right click it and select "Run as..." from context menu. A new window will open: From here you can run CMD as Administrator providing you know the password.

Edited by MPH

That's great. In a way, I'm a little surprised that a Policy can't be set to do what I want. I was under the impression that the Group Policy Editor could be very flexible in creating Policies to fit with required circumstances. The suggestion that you've made regarding running it as Administrator works well.

I just came across command.com on my PC which works similar to cmd. I've not tried it yet, but I *hope* that the setting in Group Policy will disable this too. If not, I dare say that I'll be back asking if that can be disabled!

Thank you.

I prefer to avoid third party software. I understand that bespoke policies can be set, but I don't know how. It's a very powerful utility so, rather than floundering, can you give me a nudge in the right direction about setting a policy specifically to prevent command.com from running?

I've done some googling and have come across Software Restriction Policy (SRP). There are several ways to implement this - one uses the MD5 hash of the file. I think this should allow me to authorise only an Admin user to run command.com. I don't think there's any way to prevent a "foreign" copy of command.com or some other command.com-like utility being run.

I suppose the other way around is to set SRP, based upon the MD5 hash, of those files to which I wish to grant a Limited user access. Everything else would be set to Deny for this group. I anticipate that this would prevent their using extenal applications, running batch files etc. I'm thinking aloud here so will have to try it to see how it works.

You really don't want people running a command window, huh? ;)

Consider the implications of restricting ALL programs except the ones you specify... A command prompt itself isn't that dangerous. The only thing you can do with it is launch other programs, and you're better off restricting those programs instead of the command prompt.

You can do a lot of damage with cmd.exe .

A lot of things that are restricted in the windows gui are not using cmd.exe.

I use software restriction policies on my network at work.

I dont go as bad as using hashes but I just block the exe. I use it to block chat and p2p programs.

I say try it its great.

Yes, but you're doing it differently from what he's suggesting. You block certain programs and allow everything else not specified. He's talking about blocking everything by default and specifying programs to allow. That list would fill up rather quickly.

^ if you are going to do that, besure that you set the program that you are using to be able to run... i did that once back in the day using Windows 98SE's "system policy editor" ... it was VERY powerful and i forgot to set it to run "poledit.exe" which was the name of that program... and then i couldnt run that program anymore in order to change settings, so i was stuck, lol.

  majortom1981 said:

You can do a lot of damage with cmd.exe. ........ I dont go as bad as using hashes but I just block the exe. I use it to block chat and p2p programs.

I know that command.com and cmd.exe aren't identical, but I want to be able to block both. I'm not keen on users, for instance, accessing any network commands.

I've not looked at simply blocking the .exe as you suggest. How exactly do you go about blocking chat and p2p programs?

  mujjuman said:

^ if you are going to do that, besure that you set the program that you are using to be able to run... i did that once back in the day using Windows 98SE's "system policy editor" ... it was VERY powerful and i forgot to set it to run "poledit.exe" which was the name of that program... and then i couldnt run that program anymore in order to change settings, so i was stuck, lol.

<LOL> I'd already thought about that - I'd be sure to leave myself a backdoor to apps such as gpedit.msc, regedit, cmd.exe, command.com etc.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I actually didn't like the classic Start Menu as much as the XP, Vista, 7 style menu. Mainly didn't like how you either had to click Programs every time, when that is what you would want 95% of the time, or fill up that top section (I forget what it was called back then) which was both harder than it should have been and looked ugly.
    • Beat Saber drops PlayStation VR support, no more content coming to the platform by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe Beat Saber, one of the most popular virtual reality games ever, is dropping support for the entire PlayStation VR platform. Developer Beat Games announced the decision today, saying that while PlayStation 4 and 5 players will be able to keep playing the title, no more content will be released for Beat Saber on the platform going forward. "As we look to the future and plan the next big leap for Beat Saber, we have made the decision to no longer release updates for PS4 and PS5 starting in June 2025," said the Meta-owned studio in a social media post today. "Our passion for VR remains unwavering. We are excited about the possibilities that lie ahead and what we can bring to Beat Saber fans who have been on this journey with us over the past 7 years." Lady Gaga’s Abracadabra, which released onto Beat Saber as a premium song on June 5, will be the final piece of new content that will release on PlayStation VR and PlayStation VR2. No new songs will be offered on the platforms, though customer support will still be available. Moreover, Beat Saber's multiplayer functionality is also being shut off on PlayStation soon. This feature will shut down on January 21, 2026, across both consoles. Beat Games confirmed that current Beat Saber content will remain playable on PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5 even after dropping support, whether it be from the base game, DLC, or individual purchases. Beat Saber will also remain purchasable on the PlayStation Store, and its in-game store will continue to function for players who want to buy any previously released content. Cross-buy between PlayStation 4 and 5 will remain active as well. "We're grateful for the incredible support you've shown us over the years, and we're excited to share what the future holds for Beat Saber," added the studio. Beat Games assured PC players that alongside Meta Quest headsets, the Steam version of Beat Saber will continue to get support going forward.
    • You're right. I did a quick check before posting, but clearly looked at the wrong number (was looking at the stock price, and brain farted into thinking that was market cap in billions). I was surprised it was lower than I thought, but clearly should have looked closer.
    • Soon: honda puts a turbo'd k24 in a rocket with a big spoiler and some extra body trim.
    • Half a trillion? Do your homework, they're worth more than 3 freaking trillion dollars. As for the correlation between market cap and features, I think you're mistaken. There are some things called priorities. It obviously wasn't a priority for them to implement this, as it's still not a priority to implement moving taskbar to different locations of the screen. The trillions of dollars they're worth, have nothing to do with this.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      TIGOSS earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      slackerzz earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      vivetool earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      pnajbar earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      TBithoney earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      681
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      282
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      220
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      196
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      134
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!