|
Posted by S. Pidgorny on October 12, 2005, 5:44 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
It is very unlikely that VPC is the issue, as apparently there are some
files missing (404), or the virtual directory is not created/configured).
Check is the certsrv virtual directory exists, if not - try to locate the
content on the hard drive and configure manually, or reinstall.
--
Svyatoslav Pidgorny, MS MVP - Security, MCSE
-= F1 is the key =-
> I can't get certificate registration to work on Windows 2000 SP3 when
> the server is running on VMWare or MS VPC. It installs, the service is
> running, but trying to access http://server/certsrv/default.asp results
> in the web browser showing a 404 error.
>
> The Security+ class setup, for Element K's COMPTIA curriculum requires
> Windows 2000.
>
> I ran the instructor's machine on VMWare and the students on MS VPC.
> Those
> were the licenses that I had. It was complicated by the fact that the
> class
> had to be taught with no Internet access..
>
> This occurred even when browsing for http://server/certsrv on the same
> machine.
>
> Copying a different default.htm into the virtual directory
> yielded it, but danged if I could get the default.asp program to load
> and
> run.
>
> No problem getting this to work on a network of ordinary computers.
> Can the VPC be an issue for the certificate enrollment process?
>
> I have a network of laptops, each with two virtual computers, one
> Windows 2000 SP3 Enterprise Server and the other is Windows XP. The
> virtual machines see each other on the same machine and have worked
> through a number of exercises accessing files and services on other
> laptops.
>
> A note told me to apply patch, MS02-048.MSPX, and referred to Q323172.
> But, when I look at that article and go to download the patch,
> Microsoft gives me a screen saying the patch has been moved. It no
> longer seems to be available.
>
> I did re-apply SP3 after the installation of Certificate Services, with
> no improvement.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
|