Re: Do something!
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater - Us CDN's have used that one before too...but we are joined at the hip so to speak...
59 posts • joined 4 Feb 2014
I'm confused why Microsoft would develop their own browser yet again anyhow? I am sure that google would pay Microsoft money to put their version of the browser on every PC by default instead of IE/Edge and Microsoft could still insist the default search engine be bing....
they would then make money without expending any money and still keep their own search engine alive...
I just had an awesome BOFH moment....
user called to complain that the scanner was making the files too big and asked us to make the files smaller. The DPI was set to 300 so I set it to 75 DPI....
they then called to complain that they couldn't read the text on the scanned files.
My response was, you asked for the files to be smaller, you didn't ask for them to also be legible.
Totally reminded me of the old I need more space on my drive....hey, where did all my files go BOFH article....
sent up a massive magnet...I would assume lot of the stuff would have some type of metal in it....obviously not all, but even the natural stuff from comets would have some metal in them.
Now the challenge is not to make it so big that it pulls a comet out of its orbit and make things much worse in a hurry :)
you missed the granddaddy of them all...ICQ...up until a few years ago I actually still had my icq number memorized (for whatever reason)
lol..found it in my email from 2003 (although I am sure that was the trailing end of ICQ. Even found a mention of Trillian Pro...which allowed you to talk to ICQ and MSN users
- icq# 3175333
Microsoft has made patching a complete cluster with these stupid monthly rollup patches.
Seems every month they break something, but you really can't exclude the one broken component out of 20 so you have to skip the patch. the next month, they fix that broken component, but now a different component is broken so now you wonder which broken component is worse.
Look at July rollup....41 serious issues with the rollup...including the .net which broke sharepoint, exchange,etc. If Microsoft can't even develop a patch that doesn't screw up their own inhouse applications (which should be really simple for them to test right) who trusts them not to screw up every other vendors applications.
It comes down to this, Microsoft has completely lost everyone's trust when it comes to patching because they don't bother to test at all (which is obvious with the july .net patch) so no one wants to just set auto updates and go....
quote- I didn't mind NT - did the upgrade from NT 4.03 to Windows 2000 AD -
I did that once in 4 hours upgrade and a 5 client minute outage. Took the BDC for the domain, put it on isolated network, promoted to PDC, upgraded to Windows 2000 AD, took a workstation on the prod network, put it on the isolated network and logged in as if nothing had happened.
Shutdown the production NT PDC, powered on the Windows 2000 AD server in production, and voila, upgraded to AD from NT4...
Of course, if it didn't work I was mostly fubar'd because there was no real backout...once the Client machines connected to the 2000 AD and logged in, only a drop from domain and rejoin back to the NT 4 PDC would have recovered the system if I had to backout.
Was praying it wasn't going to be a brown underwear day :)
I agree, this whole everything must be secured is absolutely stupid. If the site doesn't do login's, it doesn't need an ssl certificate. Its not like every site being secure actually adds to any protection from phishing sites...90% of them nowadays are just registering domains, setting up email, getting a lets encrypt certificate and voila from zero to phishing in 15 minutes....sheeple are stupid and will click links anyhow without looking at the address anyhow. www.micr0soft.com is the same as www.microsoft.com to most people anyhow...
How exactly is that site now NOT giving an SSL warning really providing people with better security?
As the owner of a business, I do struggle a little bit to fault the line manager. If the client is willing to pay X for helpdesk role and you've hit the target of Y below which I am not willing to either lose profit or start taking losses on the position) then you've hit the wall salary wise....
if you are happy where you are and ok with the salary then all the power to you, but your company isn't going to take a loss (real or in their margin) if the client isn't willing to pay more for your position (since smart clients pay for the position, not the person).
I was almost a customer last year. their tech is extremely nice looking and I saw a huge amount of value in it, however I was looking at their financials and while I didn't understand everything, I could tell they were bleeding cash...and they were not a cheap unit (I bought a NetApp AFF 200 for the same price eventually (which in hindsight was a smart move)
I've done the same thing but not cross country..migrated a clients environment to a true datacenter with 208V PDU's and one of their remote "workstations" got plugged in and same pop, immediately followed by crap....
As soon as it popped I realized I needed to move that stupid little switch...luckily it was same thing..swap PS and away we went...
Their client is based on RDP and the last I tried it was vastly inferior to the citrix receiver in almost every way.
I loved the concept, but it didn't really work anywhere near enough at the time for me to risk using it as a day to day solution for my hosting clients.
It also didn't have any type of builtin gateway and needed expensive SSL VPN clients to allow the remote connections.
Haven't looked at it in a while though....maybe its gotten better
Depends what you want to block. "Unsubscribe" means it's sent from a mailing list, and is therefore not a business email targeted to some specific user at my company. Then again, real spammers don't have "Unsubscribe" links.
actually in Canada, all companies are supposed to have unsubscribe links in all email originiating from a business regardless of its content like (hey, want to go for lunch).
The problem I have is that the UK arrest warrant no longer has any merit because it was based on changes from another country that no longer exist, therefore the UK warrant shouldn't exist, and therefore anything related to those invalid charges needs to be dropped.
There is the matter of jumping bail, but since the charges were withdrawn, then I would consider those charges to have been invalid to begin with and therefore anything related to those charges also needs to be excused...
What I can't figure out is why all the panic from these vendors who knew it has been around since July. I mean really...did intel only write and test the BIOS update the week before the official notification.
They had realistically Oct-Dec to actually do testing and refine the BIOS updates in concert with all the other vendors patches...which considering vendors had 3 months to create the patches and 3 months of testing should have meant that the early notification should have been no big deal....
ah, well, that ex-twitter employee won't receive any severance pay, may well be sued by both twitter and trump, and will never work in the USA again.
I actually expect that all that really happened was the account was disable, not deleted which as long as that ability was within their normal roles and responsibilities (ie, he was authorized to disable accounts) and he was still officially working for twitter during that time (ie, he hasn't officially quit) then really, nothing can be done. I guess the same could be said for deletion too (again as long as it was within his normal roles and responsibility).
He could be fired, but he was already out the door.
About the only way he can really get in trouble is if he performed an unauthorized role, he already quit and was therefore accessing computer system illegally.
They could possibly civilly sue him for damages but a judge would laugh that out of court as an 11 minute recovery obviously meant there was little financial impact to the company.
ps - I am using "he" generally as it could be a She, but usually only us guys are that stupid...
They have an awesome product and we are using their appliances at a client site, however the client has decided to move to lastline because even though the fireeye is catching Phishing and malware URL's and the lastline doesn't, the cost for lastline is 1/4 of fireeye and rely on Fortigate, Trend and other products to bridge the gap's in lastline since they already have those products in place anyhow.
Fireeye's problem is that while its a great product is way too expensive and so people are going to put in layers of protection from different vendors and still save money.
Fireeye needs to realize that the walmarts of the world make money because they are good enough for the pricepoint and that having a small number of really profitable customers isn't ask great as having millions of marginally profitable customers at the end of the day...especially since loss of a couple customers really won't make a financial impact at all...
rather we are offering IaaS and hosting our clients servers under Vmware, which according to another licence distributor was illegal, because only we are allowed to have the admin credentials and not the client (which sounds even more like bull, because a clinet may decide to have his server hosted on our hardware without us being allowed access to the VMs administration).
basically you are trying to multi-tenant the hardware and use VMware..you can't use regular VMware licensing..you need to use vCloud licensing.
As well, because mulrtiple clients VM's are running on the same hardware the clients cannot use their licenses unless they have SA agreement AND you have license mobility agreement, and Windows Server/Desktop is not covered under License mobility so you need to be an SPLA partner to license the operating systems....
its all quite clear as mud you see....
Citrix then alleged in its own October 12 counter-complaint** that the staffers, named as co-defendants, had accessed confidential Citrix information after they had left for Egnyte, its competitor.
so basically Citrix forgot to delete the sharefile data off its ex employee's machines and so it being naturally available on their ex employee's home machines, they opened it...
Sounds like Citrix doesn't know how to use the product it so helpfully sell's to customers...
It's strange that something so basic wasn't fixed up in months of testing, though.
You can use that same statement for IOS 11...how in the hell does a company release a product that doesn't work with o365 out of the gate? Its not like Microsoft doesn't have any market share and therefore no one at apple really thought to test it.
Jobs would roll over in his grave to see 2 products released at the same time with such obvious and documented and known issues. Like who the hell at Apple really thought they could release those without any noise?
As a Canadian this whole TV tax and the costs to enforce and prosecute it is absolutely absurd. No matter how much money they collect I am willing to bet that the true costs for the investigation, prosecution and collection is at least 30% of revenue.
The BBC I think is probably a lot like the CBC (which is government funded) and the CBC is paid for in some way or another through our national taxes.
You can't tell me that it would not be smarter (and ultimately cheaper) if they just added $100/year to everyone in the UK's income taxes (considering there are 65 million people in the UK, 32 million working according to the labour stats) and they could probably drop that cost considering there would no longer be an enforcement or prosecution costs.
Its not like taxes in either country don't already pay for services that we don't use (I for example pay for a public school tax even though my kids don't goto public school). Its the "everyone pay's a little so that everyone has access to the services even if they don't want to access them" civilized mentality.
However, as I was writing this I was reading how much money this TV tax collected and I almost had a kitten. How in the holy name of hell does a television company get away with a 4.827 Billion dollar budget in 2015- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom)
The CBC by comparison (lets not debate quality of programming or anything) is government funded to the tune of 1 billion in 2016 to make up operating shortfall. We have about 18 million employed people here so technically we are paying about $55/year or so on income tax to support the CBC.
No private investigation company, no judges to pay to enforce the individual tax, and no one needed to try and collect a judgment.
regardless of 2FA or not, I believe AT&T is at fault....simply for the fact that there were numerous logged calls on the account by someone who didn't know the security code..repeatedly...
that should have flagged all kinds of warning and triggered an escalation because its obvious someone was trying to compromise the account.
A single call with no security code, fine..but multiple attempts....seriously...that should have flagged something with AT&T
what I don't understand is...why is everyone buying the exact same aircraft. Isn't the whole point of the military to ensure they have a edge over their enemies (or friends as it were today). If everyone is spending millions to buy the same damn thing, all you are doing is spending a whole lot of money just to have a stalemate (and that could be accomplished with a single jet each).
Seems stupid to spend everything you have to not have any advantage at all (because the people are not really what I'd call an advantage)
So as a Canadian, I am a little confused as to why this system even works like this at all. Are you telling me there is no way to technically police this system so you don't pay the fee, you can't get the service? I don't quite understand how that system works but from what I've read it basically seems like everyone should be paying a licensing fee be they have a TV or a internet connection (regardless of what they are watching). Its seems like its essentially a social service program to ensure everyone has access to TV (much like I pay for public schools in Canada even though my kids goto private schools).
Wouldn't it actually work out cheaper for everyone if it were just added to income tax or something...Capita wouldn't be needed any longer and I imagine with 20 million people or so paying taxes, the cost per person would be peanuts compared to all this hassle with enforcement,etc
confused in Canada
Thankfully I guess my clients infections have been out of date (or we've successfully prevented the nastier versions). I know there are lots of network propogation virus's, but we just haven't had any clients click a link or open an email and have it spread to anything but the file server yet.
I've cleaned cryptov3, Osiris, locky, some weird Russian named one) and one other one I've forgotten.
all these hit the local PC (or citrix server) and was relatively quick and easy to find with Windows file screens alerting and the home drives usually the very first drive to get hit (so we've known who got hit and from there we could find them relatively quickly)
Would suck to have those buggers jumping machine to machine. We typically put interactive users in the local administrators group (because lets face it, trying to tell small business they can't be local administrators is usually a hill not worth dying on) so maybe we've been preventing the spread without realizing it.
I understand shutting them down to enable them to find the impacted machine and prevent any more chaos, however. Question still stands
According to local news station WBNS, the move was made Tuesday evening when officials found that more than one thousand county PCs had already been infected with the ransomware
How did they manage to infect 1000 PC's...not servers some user had access to...1000 other PC's on the network.
I'm confused...how are these organizations getting to many computers infected at once. I've cleaned over a dozen of the various ransomware infections and they don't spread from PC to PC..they hit the local users PC and then start hitting network drives (which if the org is smart does shut down).
Do they have 1000 people all clicking the same stupid link at the same time or what?
I also don't understand why media keeps calling it a hack..its not a hack..its a stupid user clicking something in an email...no one came in from the outside to exploit them..they exploited themselves from the inside by a privileged user.
Like saying the bank was broken into by robbers when it was the night manager who walked into the open safe and fileld a backpack. That's not a breakin...that's theft from within.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019