: Friday, 19 September 2003 7:02 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Perhaps, but that's not what he said.
Ed
--- Steve Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't, but it keeps people from reusing
credentials. At least I
believe that's
:55
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
I couldn't tell you. Our dialup consists of dialing to what essentially
is a world-wide ISP, then firing up a Nortel VPN client. The Nortel
client is apparently pretty tightly integrated with SecurID - I'm
Intel bought them for next to nothing.
-Original Message-
From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Yeah,
I remember them in my mainframe days, we used them
-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
S!!
Our security folks wanted
4:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
I don't see how that would stop key-logging.
Ed
--- Greg Marr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have set up our OWA to require two-factor
authentication (SecurID)
which eliminates any key-logging
.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
It doesn't stop key logging per se, but it renders it ineffective.
The SecurID tokens use a three
-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Forgive me for arguing, but I believe the time alloted for
guessing that
third factor is even less than
]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Actually, you've got the system down correctly.
However, the slack time is +/- 1 minute, so you really get 3 minutes per
code
.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
I've
is NT 4 SP6a in an NT4 domain.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
It really is a cool system.
We're currently using it for VPN
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
It really is a cool system.
We're currently using it for VPN access and front ending OWA, and we're
playing with it and some Cisco Aironet wireless devices - requiring
SecurID authentication before you get onto
the remote access market, then manage to lose everything
in such a short period of time.
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Thanks Ken.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
I couldn't tell you. Our dialup consists of dialing to what essentially is a
world
: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
We talked about this exact scenario. We decided that given how easy it is to
install a key logger, and other malware, on public
- licensing and security
We use a Network Appliance NetCache in the DMZ as a reverse
proxy SSL
front end. Internet OWA users hit the NetCache with HTTPS, and the
NetCache decrypts and forwards HTTP to a front-end server.
Works great,
but was a little pricey.
Also, because OWA likes
be great.
Erick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and
security
ISA is a better solution
.
Greg
-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2003 10:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and
security
We talked about this exact scenario. We decided that
given how easy
end server - licensing and security
I don't see how that would stop key-logging.
Ed
--- Greg Marr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have set up our OWA to require two-factor authentication (SecurID)
which eliminates any key-logging concerns but this system is not cheap
at approx $300 AU ($160 US
]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and
security
I don't see how that would stop key-logging.
Ed
--- Greg Marr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have set up our OWA to require two-factor
authentication
-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 September 2003 11:29 a.m.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Ed,
I'm a little confused. You're recommending that I put in a front end server,
but not in the DMZ? It seems to me that I
Discussions
Subject: Re: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Instal a certificate on the front-end server and open
port 443 to the front-end server. Putting a front-end
server in a DMZ requires you to open lots of dangerous
ports through the internal firewall to the Exchange
servers, DCs
: OWA front end server - licensing and security
You could throw an OWA front end server in the DMZ, put certificate on
as Ed
suggests, and then wrap everything up in an IPSEC packet that goes
between
the front end and backend. Between the client on the net and the front
end,
you would use SSL, so
] On Behalf Of Leeann
McCallum
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 6:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
You could throw an OWA front end server in the DMZ, put certificate on
as Ed suggests, and then wrap everything up in an IPSEC packet
Discussions
Subject: OWA front end server - licensing and security
I'm setting up OWA in my organization, and I have two choices. I can set
up Exchange on the web server (in the DMZ), and specify it as a front
end server, or I can open port 80 to the primary Exchange server. From a
security standpoint
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
IPSec is a nice idea too. But you need to test test test.
Sincerely,
Andrey
, September 17, 2003 7:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Don't forget you also have to fully protect the front end server from
all the other servers on the DMZ from which it is not isolated.
Those other systems may have been placed
missing
something else.
Thanks,
Erick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Webb, Andy
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and
security
Don't
: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
ISA is a better solution in a DMZ because it doesn't
require the plethora of holes in the internal
firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/tec
September 2003 10:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
We talked about this exact scenario. We decided that given how easy it
is to install a key logger, and other malware, on public systems we
decided it was too risky. We are planning on using public
credentials left behind by one of
your users which is where we happen to draw the line in terms of
functionality/security.
Greg
-Original Message-
From: Greg Marr
Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2003 11:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
We have
I'm setting up OWA in my organization, and I have two choices. I can set up Exchange
on the web server (in the DMZ), and specify it as a front end server, or I can open
port 80 to the primary Exchange server. From a security standpoint, I really like the
first option, but I'm thinking that I
Instal a certificate on the front-end server and open
port 443 to the front-end server. Putting a front-end
server in a DMZ requires you to open lots of dangerous
ports through the internal firewall to the Exchange
servers, DCs and GCs.
Ed
--- Erick Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm
16, 2003 4:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: OWA front end server - licensing and security
Instal a certificate on the front-end server and open
port 443 to the front-end server. Putting a front-end
server in a DMZ requires you to open lots of dangerous
ports through
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: OWA front end server - licensing and
security
Instal a certificate on the front-end server and
open
port 443 to the front-end server. Putting a
front-end
server in a DMZ requires you to open lots of
dangerous
ports through the internal firewall
,
Erick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
That's exactly what I'm saying. Get the publications
server - licensing and
security
That's exactly what I'm saying. Get the
publications
and read what ports you must open and if that
doesn't
scare you, nothing will. Open only port 443 for
SSL
OWA, and only if you can't require a VPN.
Ed
--- Erick Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 Licensing
that is what I was told as well by my rep. It is now a CAL per device that
connects. So if a person at one computer opens 5 mailboxes in Outlook it is
only 1 CAL.
- Original Message -
From: Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED
Can anyone explain how Exchange 5.5 licensing works.
If we need to have 250 users mailboxes do we need 250
licenses? Is is based on concurrent users--for example
if a company has 1000 mailboxes but at any point only
50 people are connected to the exchange server do you
only need 50 licenses?
Its
CALs (isn't there a Exchange 2003 coming out? In that case
buy THOSE CALs), since a CAL is backwardly compatible.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Stew Leonard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 Licensing
Can anyone
Yes, that's correct - the 5.5 CALs are no longer available, but the
Exchange 2K CALs entitle you to use downlevel versions of the product.
If you have 250 users and one Exchange server, purchase one server license
and 250 CALs.
_
Some time ago (I believe it was last year), I listened to a webcast put on by
Microsoft. During the Q A, one person asked the Microsoft rep what the licensing
requirement would be for the following scenario:
5 Mailboxes all being accessed from 1 computer
His answer: 1 license because
26, 2003 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Licensing
Some time ago (I believe it was last year), I listened to a webcast put on
by Microsoft. During the Q A, one person asked the Microsoft rep what the
licensing requirement would be for the following scenario:
5 Mailboxes all being accessed
This certainly could have changed, since Microsoft is famouse for altering
their licensing arrangements. At the time I bought CALs, we had to purchase
them one per user.
If MS really has made this change, then this is definitely a good thing.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Chris H
.
- Dave
- Original Message -
From: Matt Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Licensing
This certainly could have changed, since Microsoft is famouse for altering
their licensing arrangements
When you purchase sufficient Exchange 2000 licensing, you're entitled to
install Outlook 2000 on each of the licensed clients, or so im lead to
believe? :o
Anyway, can you install Outlook XP on these clients without the need for
any kind of Office XP license
AFAIK, yes, since you're using E2k. If you were 5.5, then no.
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: 04 June 2003 15:50
Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
Conversation: Outlook XP Licensing
Subject: Outlook XP Licensing
When you purchase sufficient
04, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Outlook XP Licensing
When you purchase sufficient Exchange 2000 licensing, you're
entitled to install Outlook 2000 on each of the licensed
clients, or so im lead to believe? :o
Anyway, can you install Outlook XP on these clients
Contact MS Licensing. They are the true source.
- Original Message -
From: Neil Doody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:50
Subject: Outlook XP Licensing
When you purchase sufficient Exchange 2000 licensing, you're entitled
Hi,
I'd be grateful if someone could clarify the licensing situation with
exchange, the MS site is not particularly informative in this regard. I
understand that exchange CAL's must be bought 'per-seat' for each device
that will access the server, although academic organisations can buy
'per
Contact your local vendor who supplied the licensing. We aren't
authorized MS Licensing dealers here.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson,
Daniel
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Licensing
There are 2 VERY DIFFERENT animals--corporate MC licensing and academic
licensing. Even the Redmond folks don't always know the difference.
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
Contact your local vendor who supplied the licensing. We aren't
authorized MS Licensing dealers here.
well thanks for that rather rude response.
i realise that the folks on this list aren't license vendors, although it's
possible that someone might be. regardless, i believe
Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
Contact your local vendor who supplied the licensing. We aren't
authorized MS Licensing dealers here.
well thanks for that rather rude response.
i realise that the folks on this list aren't license vendors, although it's
possible that someone might be. regardless, i
Hmmm... I've been rude before and if you thought that was rude I've got
an eye opening experience for you...
Now back to your subject... Any one of us could give you any kind of
advice on MS licensing issues. However, when you get audited and you're
asked where you got your information. What
Now do you see why some of us don't like talking about it? :)
well, i sense that it's a touchy subject here. perhaps this should be
mentioned in the FAQ?
thanks for your advice, by the way.
dan.
_
List posting FAQ:
Take it either way. I don't really care, but I'm not going to rely on
this list to tell me how my licensing works for my company.
nor would i.
i might ask for some friendly advice though, and take that into
consideration along with what MS and the vendor says.
maybe i'm wrong, but your
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 October 2001 15:32
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
Take it either way. I don't really care, but I'm not going
to rely on
this list to tell me how my licensing works for my
There is nothing to consider. What MS and your Licensing rep say is all
there is to it. It doesn't matter if what they've told me is different from
what they told you, what they tell you is the licensing you are bound to.
There is nothing to consider about that.
The only person qualified
i might ask for some friendly advice though, and take that into
consideration along with what MS and the vendor says.?
Think through that statement again. When it comes to something like
licensing, who gives a flip what anyone here says versus what MS says? We
can't bust you for a license
Pretty tough to offend me... So no apology necessary. :o)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson,
Daniel
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
Take it either way. I don't really
well, i 'give a flip', that's why i asked! of course we talk to the
licensing rep, but I asked because:
a) the licensing reps don't always sound entirely convincing
b) the information on the MS site is ambiguous
c) there's nothing about licensing in the FAQ
d) i didn't think anyone would mind
As unconvincing as your licensing rep sounds, her/his word is the final
word. Sorry.
Drew
If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each
other. (Mother Theresa)
KWAR2001 website: www.schoolofdefence.org
Well, that's a good idea.
OH GREAT AND POWERFUL FAQ GHODS! HEAR MY ENTREATY! I WILL SACRIFICE A
BRICK LEVEL BACKUP AND THREE CUSTOM RECIPIENTS IN YOUR HONOR!!!
Could we have a bit in the FAQ that says xx.x Licensing: only your rep
knows for sure or something like that?
THE FAQ GHODS
D) They also say mind at the beginning of one. Like Mind the Gap ;o)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson,
Daniel
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 8:08 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
a) damn right
b) poor excuse
Sacrifice BLB's to the gods? Are you trying to anger them Drew?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Drewski
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 8:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing OH, FAQ GHODS!
OH GREAT AND POWERFUL FAQ
Of Atkinson,
Daniel
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 8:08 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
a) damn right
b) poor excuse for crap MS policy and dissemination of info
c) i was thinking more along the lines of 'discussion of
licensing isn't
popular on the list, talk to your rep
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing OH, FAQ GHODS!
Sacrifice BLB's to the gods? Are you trying to anger them Drew?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Drewski
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001
i tell you what, you're wasted in IT, get on the tv or something.
OH GREAT AND POWERFUL FAQ GHODS! HEAR MY ENTREATY! I WILL
SACRIFICE A
BRICK LEVEL BACKUP AND THREE CUSTOM RECIPIENTS IN YOUR HONOR!!!
Could we have a bit in the FAQ that says xx.x Licensing:
only your rep
knows
just MS knowledge gods know MS better than the coders
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Don Ely
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 09:28
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
Contact your local vendor who supplied
yeah I learned the hard way Daniel
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
Daniel,
Let me tell you something from experience. I use to get pissy when everyone
would say
I don't think Don's been rude at all. What he was trying to say was that
you should really talk to your supplier because they have the best answer
for you. The only right answer for licensing questions would come from
Microsoft or their distributor that you work with.
S.
-Original
The bottom line is that anything we say here regarding licensing is just
an opinion. There is nothing we can say that you can take to the bank.
Call Microsoft 5x. Each time you will get a difffent answer. Ask for the
answer in writing and then pick the one you like best. :)
-Original
How do you pronounce 'moynd'?
Michael Herrick
Groton CIT Messaging Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:08 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Licensing
a) damn right
b) poor excuse
73 matches
Mail list logo
