From: "Geo" 

I'll limit my comments to W2K,

Create a registry key and set the permissions so only the system has
access, now try and read the key with regedit and regedt32.

Geo.

"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:423a8f06.2596824{at}216.144.1.254...
> "Geo"  wrote in message
news::
> > regedit doesn't honor the security settings of keys, you can read stuff
that
> > you can't read with regedt32 without having to change permissions.
>
> I don't believe that. The security settings in the registry are handled at
> a low level within the operating system. Regedit.exe and regedt32.exe are
> just applications that ask the OS to read/write values.
>
> It's conceivable that there could be some things you can see in regedit
> that are not visible in regedt32 (or vice versa) due to a difference in
> opinion on what to do with certain combinations of permission settings.
> However, I suggest that any discrepancy you have observed would be allowed
> by a careful study of the actual permissions (that is, you would NOT be
> able to read a setting if the permissions did not allow it).
>
> Frank: Old systems like Win98 had regedit only. The NT family provided
> regedt32 to handle the NT-specific features of the registry (manipulate
> permissions and handle some new registry types like multi-strings). NT
> also provided regedit because it had a better GUI for some things,
> particularly searching.
>
> On the new systems (XP, Win2003), there is no regedt32. Everything is now
> handled by regedit.
>
> John
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5