Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

As per "Best Practices" staff in our IT department have two accounts. An unprivileged account and an account that is a member of the global Domain Admins ($DOMAIN\Domain Admins) group. On our file servers the Domain Admins group is added to the local Administrators ($SERVER\Administrators) group. The local Administrator group has Full Control granted on these directories. Pretty standard.

However, if I login to the server with my Domain Admin account in order to descend into that directory I need to approve a UAC prompt that says, "You don't currently have permission to access this folder. Click continue to permanently get access to this folder." Clicking continue gives my Domain Admin account permissions on that folder and anything else underneath despite $SERVER\Administrators (of which I am a member of via the Domain Admins group) already having Fully Control.

Can someone explain this behavior and what the appropriate way to manage NTFS permissions for file shares is regarding Administrative rights with Server 2008 R2 and UAC?

share|improve this question
Either manage the system remotely, or disable the UAC. – Zoredache Nov 7 '12 at 0:20
I disagree with anyone recommending to disable UNC. Access the files via UNC - I believe this will work even on the local server. – Multiverse IT Nov 7 '12 at 2:14
I can't stand this behavior in WS2008+ but have to agree with @MultiverseIT's recommendation to leave UAC alone. – SturdyErde Nov 7 '12 at 12:28
up vote 9 down vote accepted

Right, UAC is triggered when a program requests administrator privileges. Such as Explorer, requesting administrator privileges, because that's what the NTFS ACLs on those files and folders require.

You have four options I'm aware of.

  1. Disable UAC on your servers.

    • I do this anyway (in the general case), and would argue that if you need UAC on a server, you're probably doing it wrong, because in general, only administrators should log onto servers, and they should know what they're doing.

  2. Manage the permissions from an elevated interface

    • Elevated cmd window, PS window or Explorer instance all work for avoiding the UAC popup. (Run As Administrator)

  3. Manage the NTFS permissions remotely

    • Connect over UNC from a machine that doesn't have UAC turned on.

  4. Create an additional non-administrative group that has full access in the NTFS ACLs to all the files and folders you want to manipulate, and assign your admins to it.

    • The UAC popup won't (shouldn't) be triggered, because Explorer will no longer require Administrative privileges, as access to the files is granted through another, non-administrative group.
share|improve this answer
Good list. One note: if you manage the NTFS permissions remotely, it doesn't matter whether or not UAC is enabled for the system that you are managing from. It will not prompt when modifying ACL's on a remote server. – SturdyErde Nov 7 '12 at 12:29
Yay! Option 4 works well :) – CrazyTim Jan 14 at 1:09

The best way is to change the registry key at

registry::HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\policies\system; key = EnableLUA

Make sure it is set to Value 0 to disable it. You need to reboot to make it take effect. Interface might show it as disabled while registry is enabled.

share|improve this answer

You can also disabled the Admin Approval mode for administrators via GPO or in the Local Security Policy.

Local Security Policy\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Run all administrators in Admin Approval Mode - Disabled

share|improve this answer

Set both these policies for members of local Administrator group to be able to change files and connect to admin shares:

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
Not sure if this method actually works, but it reduces overall security and is not necessary to solve the problem. Two working solutions have already been provided without reducing security. – SturdyErde May 23 at 17:24

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.