P
Phil Wilson
I'm looking for suggestions about what seems to be an issue with IIS 5.1.
It's configured to impersonate the client with the high security model, some
server-side C# is being called, and it turns out to be running with the
IWAM_MACHINENAME account, which hasn't got rights to Windows\Temp (or to
anything much at all) so it fails trying to JIT the code. This is similar
to http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;823196 but the
real issue here seems to be that the dllhost.exe that's hosting all this
shouldn't even be running with IWAM_MACHINENAME - it should be running with
ASPNET, NETWORK SERVICE, a configured account, SYSTEM, or the the
impersonated user (as far as I can tell) depending on the configuration
option. It makes no sense at all that a JIT would run with IWAM_MACHINENAME
that hasn't got access to Windows\Temp or even the csc.exe compiler. I've
read articles that suggest that it's Component Services that is somehow
losing the configuration for the IIS pooled apps.
Any clues about whether there's a bug or configuration error here would be
appreciated. Thanks.
It's configured to impersonate the client with the high security model, some
server-side C# is being called, and it turns out to be running with the
IWAM_MACHINENAME account, which hasn't got rights to Windows\Temp (or to
anything much at all) so it fails trying to JIT the code. This is similar
to http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;823196 but the
real issue here seems to be that the dllhost.exe that's hosting all this
shouldn't even be running with IWAM_MACHINENAME - it should be running with
ASPNET, NETWORK SERVICE, a configured account, SYSTEM, or the the
impersonated user (as far as I can tell) depending on the configuration
option. It makes no sense at all that a JIT would run with IWAM_MACHINENAME
that hasn't got access to Windows\Temp or even the csc.exe compiler. I've
read articles that suggest that it's Component Services that is somehow
losing the configuration for the IIS pooled apps.
Any clues about whether there's a bug or configuration error here would be
appreciated. Thanks.