I'm trying to configure my home router to do some port forwarding onto a
device on my internal network. However, this is a VMWare Workstation guest
using NAT networking so it has an address on a different range
(192.168.183.x) rather than the home network's default range (192.168.1.x)
So when I
We have just moved several customers who were on BT Broadband of to other
providers becasu their routers and the way they deal with static public IP's
the router gets its IP from DHCP and if you pay for static it is passed
through to the dynamic one
The router then will only allow you to port
Just wait till someone forwards a joke or scam report to your entire staff, or
asks for someone to move their car. That should do it.
Sent from my Blackberry, which may be an antique but delivers email RELIABLY
-Original Message-
From: David Lum david@nwea.org
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013
Nope, that already happens, and we have employees that REPLY ALL to those..
From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:43 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Limiting who can send all-staff e-mails
Just wait till someone forwards a joke or
If they can't see why it's a bad idea from that sort of thing,
thenyou're up against it
On 25 January 2013 11:56, David Lum david@nwea.org wrote:
Nope, that already happens, and we have employees that REPLY ALL to
those..
** **
*From:* kz2...@googlemail.com
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:36 AM, James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm trying to configure my home router to do some port forwarding onto a
device on my internal network. However, this is a VMWare Workstation guest
using NAT networking so it has an address on a different range
Unfortunately the guest won't work in a bridged configuration. God knows
why. It also can't be configured with a second network card for some
reason, which again reduces my options :-(
Hazen emailed me offline to try using VMWare's own internal NAT port
forwarding to see if we could push the
If they do it and management doesn't care...
On Friday, January 25, 2013, David Lum wrote:
Nope, that already happens, and we have employees that REPLY ALL to
those..
** **
*From:* kz2...@googlemail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'kz2...@googlemail.com');
so this means that the skiprearm command does not work?
- Original Message -
What Jim said. Build your image while in audit mode. This way you can always
fall back on it, run updates, etc.
-Original Message-
From: itli...@imcu.com [mailto:itli...@imcu.com]
Sent: Saturday,
Thanks for all the help guys. I finally managed to shoehorn the VM into
running in Bridged mode, and as was pointed out to me, this seems to have
made all the difference.
I can now access my funky new DataNow home appliance from the internet and
kick DropBox and Google Drive into touch :-)
Doesn't that just reset the licensing state to OOB...but not anything else?
-Original Message-
From: ANDREW F OFALT [mailto:afo...@psu.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:12 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Windows 7 Sysprep, PITA
so this means that the skiprearm command
No links, but management here clamped down because people were sending personal
charity, business, and greeting cards emails to everybody. That, and I
brought up how easy it would be for a disgruntled employee to send an
inappropriate message to the entire company.
-Paul
From: David Lum
There's no link to cure that problem.
I wouldn't worry about solving it if they aren't interested in solving it.
Just calculate the space consumption that is involved and see if that
is significant enough for discussion.
It will change as soon as someone in management is impacted.
*ASB
I brought up how easy it would be for a disgruntled employee to send an
inappropriate message to the entire company
That, and malware being sent to the big DL were my arguments. These in addition
to the fact we just had several training sessions on how excessive e-mails
result in lost
It's kind of an all or nothing proposition
http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2009/09/29/3408403.aspx
John W. Cook
Network Operations Manager
Partnership For Strong Families
5950 NW 1st Place
Gainesville, Fl 32607
Office (352) 244-1610
Cell (352) 215-6944
MCSE, MCP+I, MCTS, CompTIA
You have to decide how hard to push the issue.
I look at these things based on risk and damage to the org. If the risk/damage
is high I push hard. If it isn't I advise them of the situation and let them
learn for themselves. And I don't say/do that because I am smug or think I am
smarter than
*Ross Perot (Dana Carvey) voice*
It's bad, just bad...
Regards,
Don Guyer
Catholic Health East - Information Technology
Enterprise Directory Messaging Services
3805 West Chester Pike, Suite 100, Newtown Square, Pa 19073
email: dgu...@che.orgmailto:dgu...@che.org
Office: 610.550.3595 | Cell:
yeah, I know companies that have had an employee forward huge attachments to
everyone and brought the mail server to it’s knees.
Bill
From: Andrew S. Baker
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:42 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Limiting who can send all-staff e-mails
There's no link
And management doesn't make bad decisions?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Guyer, Don dgu...@che.org wrote:
**Ross Perot (Dana Carvey) voice**
** **
It’s bad, just bad…
** **
Regards,
* *
*Don Guyer**
**Catholic Health East - Information Technology*
Enterprise
Be advised that the primary vector for Java exploits into an organization
is via the web browser plugin. So, unless your B2B app is over the public
network, or requires that the browser plugin be operational, you have some
measure of risk reduction.
*ASB
**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*
Interesting point...however as it is a nix-based guest, I'm not too clear about
how to harden it. Similar to the Citrix Merchandising Server, there's no real
console to connect to besides the web interface and no guidance on how to
secure it. Any useful links anyone might be able to share
I haven't done this on my own yet, but in theory another option to consider is
to (this depends on what email server you use):
1. Set moderation requirement on the all staff mailing list so someone
has to approve all messages. Specific trusted people would not be moderated
though so
No, I meant just tell them no constraints on replying/sending to all is bad.
: )
Regards,
Don Guyer
Catholic Health East - Information Technology
Enterprise Directory Messaging Services
3805 West Chester Pike, Suite 100, Newtown Square, Pa 19073
email: dgu...@che.orgmailto:dgu...@che.org
If it is over the internet...add that site to trusted and disable java in the
'internet zone'.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2011/05/15/controlling-java-in-internet-explorer.aspx
From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:04 AM
To: NT
Good mitigation...
*ASB
**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker*
**Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations Information Security) for
the SMB market…***
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Kennedy, Jim kennedy...@elyriaschools.org
wrote:
If it is over the
I gathered that, but I will need to consult with the vendor to find out (sends
Tweet)
Sent from my Blackberry, which may be an antique but delivers email RELIABLY
-Original Message-
From: Webster webs...@carlwebster.com
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:21:53
To: NT System Admin
This is exactly what we have done.
Thanks. Good to hear others recommend it.
From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:kennedy...@elyriaschools.org]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Java 7 0day actively exploited in the wild | BeyondTrust
If it is over
Can't you just ssh to it (using putty or other windows client) by it's IP
address. Use root to login with whatever the default password is.
Then once you're in the shell, try using iptables to manage the linux firewall
settings - here's some basics -
CentOS, apparently
Sent from my Blackberry, which may be an antique but delivers email RELIABLY
-Original Message-
From: Webster webs...@carlwebster.com
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:21:53
To: NT System Admin Issuesntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Reply-To: NT System Admin Issues
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jeremiah Rumball jdrumb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've come across a rather odd issue that I'd like your opinions on. We have
a user at a ~10 user company who complains of slowness in their primary
business app. He complains about every other month. The app
For many of our distribution lists we've made it so that they can't receive
email from outside the company. For our larger distribution lists we've
set them to a limited pool of senders. Mostly HR or Senior Management or
their admins.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Guyer, Don
Ditto.
Regards,
Don Guyer
Catholic Health East - Information Technology
Enterprise Directory Messaging Services
3805 West Chester Pike, Suite 100, Newtown Square, Pa 19073
email: dgu...@che.orgmailto:dgu...@che.org
Office: 610.550.3595 | Cell: 610.955.6528 | Fax: 610.271.9440
For immediate
Just a thought but if one device is compromised by a virus w/ an smtp engine,
it spams all local addresses and then you have all of your devices infected.
No links just the scenario that came to mind.
Good luck
Shauna
From: dgu...@che.org
To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Date: Fri,
I believe M$ also published a registry file that disabled invocation of Java in
Internet zone. But I also use ZeroVulnerabilityLabs exploitshield and
Sandboxing, when looking at anything on the net these days.
Z
Edward E. Ziots, CISSP, Security +, Network +
Security Engineer
Lifespan
I've implemented the Internet zone disable as well. This protects against the
APPLET tag.
This does not protect against activeX object usage in the Internet zone -
OBJECT tag. The bulk of the registry settings recommended (CERT/Microsoft)
are to make the make the Java activeX objects unsafe
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Jeremiah Rumball jdrumb...@gmail.com wrote:
... a high percentage of packet re-transmission coming from the one
user's PC; all of the other PCs have little to no re-transmissions.
I'd try to get a packet sniffer in place while the problem is
happening, and
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:46 PM, kz2...@googlemail.com wrote:
CentOS, apparently
CentOS is just Red Hat Enterprise Linux with the Red Hat Inc
trademarks stripped out.
So find a guide on hardening RHEL, and follow that. :)
-- Ben
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a
+1.
CentOS can also have additional packages that don't appear in Red Hat's
repositories. These are disabled by default, but be aware of the possibility of
their existence.
See here:
http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories
--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District
- Original
All good stuff...however next week I am going to have a chat with the vendor
and discuss their security stance on these appliances, so I will see how much I
can convince them to automate the updating of it :-) will have to read up a bit
first I think
--Original Message--
From: Matthew
39 matches
Mail list logo
