Recommended Posts

I work for a high school as a computer technician. Me and the other tech want to set a specific wallpaper that will display on all computers when an user is logged in. We plan on using a GPO to enforce this.

We tried using a registry setting to change the wallpaper at login. However, after they log in, they can still change it. We have display properties disabled, but the students found several programs that still let them change the wallpaper.

Is there any way to absolutely force the wallpaper, with no way whatsoever to change it? A GPO is majorly preferred, but if there is something we would have to edit on the individual computers (like a third party program or something that can't be set through GPO), that wouldn't be too much of an issue.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/699048-forced-wallpaper-via-a-gpo/
Share on other sites

Did you set it in

GP>User Config>Admin template>desktop>active desktop> allow only bitmapped wallpaper /active desktop wallpaper

GP>User Config>Admin template>control panel>display> prevent chaging wallpaper

I -think- thats how I stoped my users I can't see my GP as I got made redundant but looking on my 2k3 server it looks right.. let me know

Did you set it in

GP>User Config>Admin template>desktop>active desktop> allow only bitmapped wallpaper /active desktop wallpaper

GP>User Config>Admin template>control panel>display> prevent chaging wallpaper

I -think- thats how I stoped my users I can't see my GP as I got made redundant but looking on my 2k3 server it looks right.. let me know

It seems that we already tried all of those. I checked every setting in our group policy and all of those were already enabled and applied to the computer labs.

They do work quite well, but it seems that people are still able to override them. Even Firefox, if you right click on an image on a webpage, you can still set it as the wallpaper, even with those policies applied.

We just tried this GPO on a single pc:

User Configuration> Administrative Templates> Desktop> Active Desktop> Active Desktop Wallpaper

We enabled that, and than changed the path to a local wallpaper. It worked, and anything we threw at it couldn't change the wallpaper. However, it was logged in as a local account.

We logged out of the local account, and into a domain account (a test account with student permissions). The wallpaper didn't even apply, and we were able to change it with ease using the third party programs and Firefox.

Tony (the other tech) than logged in as his non-administrator account, and the wallpaper did apply, and he again was unable to change it.

It probably is worth noting that every account has redirected folders and roaming profiles. The tech people (Tony and I) are the only exception to this rule (we use flash drives instead).

So long story short:

1) We used a GPO to save this setting

2) The accounts that do not have redirected folders or roaming profiles are effected by this GPO, and can't change wallpapers, but that would be pretty much me and one other person.

3) Everyone else (who does have redirection and roaming) is not effected by this GPO.

It seems that the issue is with the roaming profiles and folder redirection. Any ideas?

The issue is not that you use roaming profiles and folder redirection, the issue is that the domain account overrode the local account settings you made in the local GPO. Make a test OU in the AD and do your tests with that. Never test a domain policy with a local account, nor ever test a policy made locally with your domain account. A test OU costs you nothing, so make them and use them. Test accounts, too.

That is what I thought at first, I thought the domain's GPOs were overriding the local ones, but like I said, the other tech was able to log into his account (domain user, non-administrator, no roam or redirect) and the local GPO applied to him. So we did manage to get the local GPO to apply to a Domain user.

We essentially did try that, to the same results.

We did try using the GPO on a domain level, and applying it to the container that our test computers are in, and seemed to have even worse luck than a local policy. We could not get the wallpaper to apply to a single account

What would happen if you created a new computer OU. created a new user & applied a group policy to that OU does that work?

Ah! If I remember correctly I had to apply the GPO to the User & Computer. I don't know why but I'm sure it worked.

BTW Joey H: where on Earth are you?

We essentially did try that, to the same results.

We did try using the GPO on a domain level, and applying it to the container that our test computers are in, and seemed to have even worse luck than a local policy. We could not get the wallpaper to apply to a single account

You can't apply a User Configuration GP to a computer. That would be a very large mistake. You apply User Configs to user objects, and Computer Configs to computers.

u2_storm: I'm on the part that isn't an ocean. More specifically, St. Louis metro.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, I had a few problems I had to deal with (one of our servers was down, and we had to get a computer lab moved), so I didn't pay much attention to the wallpapers. I'm gonna try the new computer OU on Monday and hope it works. I'll let you all know. But I do appreciate all the help so far. Thank you :)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327998

Following the above instructions, they will not be able to change the wallpaper in IE but will be able to in Firefox. Even of they change it in Firefox, the wallpaper will reset back to gpo defined wallpaper after reboot or logoff/logon. I have the same problem at my job so I feel your pain :/

Edited by VRam

Or just leave it alone. what harm to work can a picture on a desktop do? They allow users to feel relaxed and will allow them to work in an environment that is familiar to them, increasing their productivity. Forcing a boring same wallpaper every login is silly and boring.

Or just leave it alone. what harm to work can a picture on a desktop do? They allow users to feel relaxed and will allow them to work in an environment that is familiar to them, increasing their productivity. Forcing a boring same wallpaper every login is silly and boring.

Its a distraction. Our kids should be focusing on their work and not searching the net for a the latest pic of 50 cent or the newest Ferrari to set as their wallpaper. People also tend to frown on their PC greeting them with a pornographic image when booted. I like keeping all the machines uniform and neat and since I'm the one who has to fix what they screw up, I feel I have a right to make it so.

Or just leave it alone. what harm to work can a picture on a desktop do? They allow users to feel relaxed and will allow them to work in an environment that is familiar to them, increasing their productivity. Forcing a boring same wallpaper every login is silly and boring.

Leaving it to the user could contravene the company's AUP. Don't spout crap about a work environment you don't understand.

Not sure why the wallpaper can be changed despite the group policies, but how about overriding the default permissions for the registry key (whatever it is) that defines the wallpaper currently in use? I would *think* that if a user doesn't have sufficient rights to update the key--whatever the means used--then a new wallpaper couldn't be specified...

I thought I found the magic bullet when someone on the net suggested unregistering the shimgvw.dll (removes the "set as desktop background" context menu, but found that also disables the Windows picture and Fax viewer which makes the trick useless. I guess you could install another picture viewer, but thats just another program to maintain. Microsoft should fix the group policy setting to do what it claims to do prevent changing wallpaper.

Or just leave it alone. what harm to work can a picture on a desktop do? They allow users to feel relaxed and will allow them to work in an environment that is familiar to them, increasing their productivity. Forcing a boring same wallpaper every login is silly and boring.

We have many complaints from teachers about wallpapers. There are some students who spend way too much time looking for new wallpapers and not paying attention to their classwork. Also, alot of students seem to have no sense of decency. I've seen wallpapers containing nudity, pornography/hentai, racism, sexism, drug use, just about everything that someone could find highly offensive. The teachers do send students out of class when something like this comes up, and the students do receive discipline, but we don't want it there in the first place. Even if it is not inappropriate, students like to show off their wallpapers, which creates distractions in class.

Not sure why the wallpaper can be changed despite the group policies, but how about overriding the default permissions for the registry key (whatever it is) that defines the wallpaper currently in use? I would *think* that if a user doesn't have sufficient rights to update the key--whatever the means used--then a new wallpaper couldn't be specified...

To my understanding, registry editing is pretty much restricted. The users can't directly access the registry, and the fields that they can edit are very limited in number. I would believe that the registry strings that control the wallpaper would be locked, but if they aren't, that could be a pretty big hole right there. That is defiantly something I will talk to the other tech about, and we'll investigate it.

Edited by Joey H
To my understanding, registry editing is pretty much restricted. The users can't directly access the registry, and the fields that they can edit are very limited in number. I would believe that the registry strings that control the wallpaper would be locked, but if they aren't, that could be a pretty big hole right there. That is defiantly something I will talk to the other tech about, and we'll investigate it.

I don't suspect that students are directly editing the registry, but whatever means they use to change the wallpaper, would run using the same security privileges as that user.

So if you remove the privileges for the registry key for UserX, then it doesn't matter *how* UserX tries to change the wallpaper (desktop properties, Use As Wallpaper in a browser, etc)--all those methods should fail because the process that attempts to write the new value is also running as UserX.

We did eventually manage to stop people from changing their wallpapers. It's a fairly crude method, but it does work well.

There were two ways people were changing wallpapers:

1) Mozilla Firefox

2) Third party wallpaper managers

I don't know exactly how, but the other tech managed to lock "firefox wallpaper.bmp", so that if someone tried to change their wallpaper in firefox, it would not change. I think he found a way to make the file read only, and so that people can't change the read-only status. I don't know how he pulled that off, I wasn't there that day.

The third party programs were easy. Students don't have permission to write any data to program files, they only have read only access. The same goes for the windows directory. So the easiest solution was to use a GPO to block all programs not located in C:\Program Files, C:\Windows, or specific read-only shares located on one of our file servers.

It's not the best solution, but so far it seems to be taking very good care of the wallpaper issues. Furthermore, students were installing games into their documents folder, and that took care of those games too.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!