Folder Marked As Read-only - Can't Change

proteus71

Not exactly a test question, instead a problem I am experiencing that I hope someone here could help me with. This morning I upgraded a Windows 2000 file server to Windows Server 2003. This server will not be used as a file server any more, so I deleted all the user folders, except one won't delete. There's a gray check mark for read-only, after I uncheck it, close the folder and go back in, it's checked again. There was not an owner listed, so I took ownership (using the knowledge from passing 70-290 ). Still can't change the read only attribute. My boss tried it in DOS with no luck. Any opinions?

sthomas

After you took ownership of the folder did you add your user account or group to the list and give yourself full control permissions? Also, make sure you select the check box "replace all existing inheritable permissions on all decendants with inheritable permissions for this object" check box so the permissions propagate to the child objects of that folder.

proteus71

One of the wierd things about this. I took ownership as the admin, but in the permissions field it does not list admin, instead it lists 2 SID's. I did give both SID's full control (figuring one must be for admin). I chose propogate when unchecking the read-only attribute (though the properties of the folder lists 0 sub-folders/files and 0 kb for size.

sthomas

You need to add the admin account into the permissions field and then give it full control. The 2 entries that show the SID means that particular user/group account no longer exists.

sprkymrk

proteus71 wrote:

One of the wierd things about this. I took ownership as the admin, but in the permissions field it does not list admin, instead it lists 2 SID's. I did give both SID's full control (figuring one must be for admin). I chose propogate when unchecking the read-only attribute (though the properties of the folder lists 0 sub-folders/files and 0 kb for size.

You won't see a folder size or subfolders/files until you get at least read permission.

This is an odd bug I have seen before. If adding your own (or admin) account to full permissions and then propagating those down doesn't give you access, I think it is a bug. I have seen several KB articles on it, none of which ever fixed it that I have seen. Let me know if you can add your own account or not.