Re: OT: DVD burning software

[Andrew Levicki]

Agreed. Imgburn FTW.

On 29 May 2010 11:37, Steven M. Caesare  wrote:

> Love imgburn.
>
> Light. Fast. Succinct.
>
> More software should be like it.
>
> -sc
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:05 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software
>
> I've been using cdburnerxp for a long time, and am satisfied.  But never
> heard of Imgburn, and looking at the screenshots it looks rather
> neat-o... Got to give it a whirl someday.
>
>
> Phillip Partipilo
> Parametric Solutions Inc.
> Jupiter, Florida
> (561) 747-6107
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IS Technical [mailto:ist...@intsolcan.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:54 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:04 -0400, David Mazzaccaro
> wrote:
>
> >cdburnerxp
> >
>
> >
>
> >From: Manuel Santos [mailto:nel...@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:07 PM
> >To: NT System Admin Issues
> >Subject: Re: OT: DVD burning software
>
>
> >I would suggest you AShampoo, that has even a free
> version
>
>
> >2010/5/27 Bill Songstad 
>
>
> >   I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover
> that I don't
> >have the Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.
> Does anybody have a
> >recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I
> know I can
> >download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of
> bloat that if I
> >have to pay, I want something a little less full of
> baloney.
> >
> >   Any feedback would be appreciated,
> >
> >
> >   Bill
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >.
> >~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a
> resource hog! ~
> >~  Enterprise/>  ~
>
>
> Regards,
> Charles
>
> ---
>   Charles Figueiredo PhD
>   Integrated Solutions - Enhancing Small Business Systems
> ---
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>   ~
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>   ~
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>


-- 
Kind regards,

Andrew Levicki
MCITP:EDST7/EMA/EA,MCSE,MCSA,MCP,CCNA,ITIL

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT: DVD burning software

[Steven M. Caesare]

Love imgburn.

Light. Fast. Succinct.

More software should be like it.

-sc

-Original Message-
From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:p...@psnet.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software

I've been using cdburnerxp for a long time, and am satisfied.  But never
heard of Imgburn, and looking at the screenshots it looks rather
neat-o... Got to give it a whirl someday.


Phillip Partipilo
Parametric Solutions Inc.
Jupiter, Florida
(561) 747-6107



-Original Message-
From: IS Technical [mailto:ist...@intsolcan.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software

+1

On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:04 -0400, David Mazzaccaro
wrote:

>cdburnerxp
>

>

>From: Manuel Santos [mailto:nel...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:07 PM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: Re: OT: DVD burning software


>I would suggest you AShampoo, that has even a free
version


>2010/5/27 Bill Songstad 


>   I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover
that I don't
>have the Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.
Does anybody have a
>recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I
know I can
>download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of
bloat that if I
>have to pay, I want something a little less full of
baloney.
>
>   Any feedback would be appreciated,
>
>
>   Bill

>

>

>


>

>


>.
>~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a
resource hog! ~
>~   ~


Regards,
Charles

---
   Charles Figueiredo PhD
   Integrated Solutions - Enhancing Small Business Systems
---



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Office 2003 and Snipping tool

[Jon Harris]

Has anyone used the Windows 7 Snipping Tool with Office 2003?  I keep having
an issue with Excel or Word closing if I don't have them open before the
first use of the Snipping Tool.  The Office application seems to crash on
closing.  I don't know if it is just this setup or if others are having it
as well.

Thanks for any insight,

Jon

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: OT: DVD burning software

[Jon Harris]

+1

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:10 PM, John Cook  wrote:

> Imgburn rocks for making iso files!
>
> John W. Cook
> Systems Administrator
> Partnership For Strong Families
> 315 SE 2nd Ave
> Gainesville, Fl 32601
> Office (352) 393-2741 x320
> Cell (352) 215-6944
> Fax (352) 393-2746
> MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:05 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
>  Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software
>
> I've been using cdburnerxp for a long time, and am satisfied.  But never
> heard of Imgburn, and looking at the screenshots it looks rather neat-o...
> Got to give it a whirl someday.
>
>
> Phillip Partipilo
> Parametric Solutions Inc.
> Jupiter, Florida
> (561) 747-6107
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IS Technical [mailto:ist...@intsolcan.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:54 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:04 -0400, David Mazzaccaro
> wrote:
>
> >cdburnerxp
> >
>
> >
>
> >From: Manuel Santos [mailto:nel...@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:07 PM
> >To: NT System Admin Issues
> >Subject: Re: OT: DVD burning software
>
>
> >I would suggest you AShampoo, that has even a free
> version
>
>
> >2010/5/27 Bill Songstad 
>
>
> >   I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover
> that I don't
> >have the Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.
> Does anybody have a
> >recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I
> know I can
> >download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of
> bloat that if I
> >have to pay, I want something a little less full of
> baloney.
> >
> >   Any feedback would be appreciated,
> >
> >
> >   Bill
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >.
> >~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a
> resource hog! ~
> >~  Enterprise/>  ~
>
>
> Regards,
> Charles
>
> ---
>   Charles Figueiredo PhD
>   Integrated Solutions - Enhancing Small Business Systems
> ---
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or
> attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI),
> confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission,
> dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without
> the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information
> may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
> of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or
> unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil
> and/or criminal penalties.
>  Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
> need to.
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: laptop encryption

[Kurt Buff]

+1

Wish I could get us there, but we have sales geeks in the field, and
they need to be able to demo our software. Getting it all set up for
remote demo is something that's not in the budget at the moment.

Kurt

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 13:39, Alex Eckelberry
 wrote:
> Not the answer you’re looking for, but what about a different thought?
> Don’t keep anything of value on a laptop.  Only run laptops client/server
> (VPN or TS or whatever).
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:58 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: laptop encryption
>
>
>
> There was a post last week about HIPAA compliance and a small part of that
> discussion there were a couple of encryption programs mentioned.  I have
> bitlocker running on the OS's that happen to come with it, and need
> something for those that don't.  Might consider OS upgrade if the encryption
> piece is too costly.
>
>
>
> anyone using something they LOVE?  any chance there is a program that will
> report encryption status back to a management station?
>
>
>
> tiafah.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Modular malware

[Andrew S. Baker]

That's a good point, Ben.

Right now, Android apps will tell you what access they (think they) need,
and you get to approve/disapprove the whole selection.  Hopefully, we'll get
to the point of granular control from an end-user and/or admin perspective.

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker


On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Phillip Partipilo  wrote:
> > Maybe that’s Apple’s stance… Have any code that runs on your device
> forcibly
> > vetted by a 3rd party, with you having no control whatsoever (well, aside
> > from a JB)
>
>   That's Apple's party line, but it's a safe bet they aren't looking
> *that* closely at each program that gets uploaded.
>
>  But one advantage to application-specific pre-built platforms like
> the iPhone and the BlackBerry is that they can offer more useful
> control over what each program is allowed do.  On the BB, for example,
> for each program, you can choose whether it gets access to your
> contacts, your email, the Internet, etc.
>
> -- Ben
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Internal routing

[Richard Stovall]

Can you post the results of a 'route print' command, and a "tracert -d fqdn'
from one of the affected machines?

Going back over the thread, you initially said that https is working.  Is
that still true in each of the following cases?

https://dmz-ip
https://fqdn

What about the suggestion to telnet to the site on port 80?  Have you had a
chance to try that?

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:32 PM, mqcarp  wrote:

> I see the public IP address route in the browser. Firefox is doing
> this. I put the exact error below. On the same machine, the nslookup
> is correct to the internal IP
>
> The following error was encountered: Connection to 66.xxx.xxx.51 Failed
>
> The system returned: (110) Connection timed out
>
> The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RESOLVED: RE: SharePoint

[David Lum]

Add/Remove...Windows Components...Application Server  check ASP.NET, 
click OK to have it add that feature.

Bizarre, but I guess it makes sense.

Dave

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:39 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SharePoint

Tried the trusted sites thing. It turns out it's Office 2008 files that don't 
play nice, even though we (seem to) have the correct MIME types defined in 
Metabase.xml.  Older .DOC and XLS work, DOCX and XLSX don't still digging but 
should be easy I'd think.

Dave

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SharePoint

Check your trusted sites and ActiveX settings? I have had to tweak these to get 
this stuff to work on my machine before at customer sites.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c   - 312.731.3132

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:28 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: SharePoint

On our new SharePoint server site  (2003, not MOSS which is really just basic 
SharePoint that points to our existing DB) does have the "Edit" option from the 
document listing. We can check in and checkout, etc, but Edit doesn't work.  It 
works fine on our old SharePoint server so we know it's specific to the 
SharePoint server itself.

Anyone seen this and have a fix? Google-Fu mostly shows client-side fixes.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764














~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: SharePoint

[David Lum]

Tried the trusted sites thing. It turns out it's Office 2008 files that don't 
play nice, even though we (seem to) have the correct MIME types defined in 
Metabase.xml.  Older .DOC and XLS work, DOCX and XLSX don't still digging but 
should be easy I'd think.

Dave

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SharePoint

Check your trusted sites and ActiveX settings? I have had to tweak these to get 
this stuff to work on my machine before at customer sites.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c   - 312.731.3132

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:28 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: SharePoint

On our new SharePoint server site  (2003, not MOSS which is really just basic 
SharePoint that points to our existing DB) does have the "Edit" option from the 
document listing. We can check in and checkout, etc, but Edit doesn't work.  It 
works fine on our old SharePoint server so we know it's specific to the 
SharePoint server itself.

Anyone seen this and have a fix? Google-Fu mostly shows client-side fixes.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: SharePoint

[Brian Desmond]

Check your trusted sites and ActiveX settings? I have had to tweak these to get 
this stuff to work on my machine before at customer sites.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c   - 312.731.3132

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:28 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: SharePoint

On our new SharePoint server site  (2003, not MOSS which is really just basic 
SharePoint that points to our existing DB) does have the "Edit" option from the 
document listing. We can check in and checkout, etc, but Edit doesn't work.  It 
works fine on our old SharePoint server so we know it's specific to the 
SharePoint server itself.

Anyone seen this and have a fix? Google-Fu mostly shows client-side fixes.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764






~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: OT: DVD burning software

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Phillip Partipilo  wrote:
> I've been using cdburnerxp for a long time, and am satisfied.  But never
> heard of Imgburn, and looking at the screenshots it looks rather neat-o...

  That's where we're at, too.  Been very happy with CDBXP.  It's even
got a deployable MSI.  ImgBurn looks like it has more features, but
CDBXP is doing everything we need it to, so I haven't bothered trying
anything else yet.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Modular malware

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Phillip Partipilo  wrote:
> Maybe that’s Apple’s stance… Have any code that runs on your device forcibly
> vetted by a 3rd party, with you having no control whatsoever (well, aside
> from a JB)

  That's Apple's party line, but it's a safe bet they aren't looking
*that* closely at each program that gets uploaded.

  But one advantage to application-specific pre-built platforms like
the iPhone and the BlackBerry is that they can offer more useful
control over what each program is allowed do.  On the BB, for example,
for each program, you can choose whether it gets access to your
contacts, your email, the Internet, etc.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT: DVD burning software

[greg.sweers]

+1

-Original Message-
From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software

Imgburn rocks for making iso files!

John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
315 SE 2nd Ave
Gainesville, Fl 32601
Office (352) 393-2741 x320
Cell (352) 215-6944
Fax (352) 393-2746
MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4


-Original Message-
From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software

I've been using cdburnerxp for a long time, and am satisfied.  But never heard 
of Imgburn, and looking at the screenshots it looks rather neat-o... Got to 
give it a whirl someday.


Phillip Partipilo
Parametric Solutions Inc.
Jupiter, Florida
(561) 747-6107



-Original Message-
From: IS Technical [mailto:ist...@intsolcan.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software

+1

On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:04 -0400, David Mazzaccaro
wrote:

>cdburnerxp
>

>

>From: Manuel Santos [mailto:nel...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:07 PM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: Re: OT: DVD burning software


>I would suggest you AShampoo, that has even a free
version


>2010/5/27 Bill Songstad 


>   I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover
that I don't
>have the Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.
Does anybody have a
>recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I
know I can
>download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of
bloat that if I
>have to pay, I want something a little less full of
baloney.
>
>   Any feedback would be appreciated,
>
>
>   Bill

>

>

>


>

>


>.
>~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a
resource hog! ~
>~   ~


Regards,
Charles

---
   Charles Figueiredo PhD
   Integrated Solutions - Enhancing Small Business Systems
---



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or 
attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), 
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, 
dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without 
the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may 
be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 
(HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or 
disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties.
 Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really 
need to.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Internal routing

[mqcarp]

I see the public IP address route in the browser. Firefox is doing
this. I put the exact error below. On the same machine, the nslookup
is correct to the internal IP

The following error was encountered: Connection to 66.xxx.xxx.51 Failed

The system returned: (110) Connection timed out

The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

SharePoint

[David Lum]

On our new SharePoint server site  (2003, not MOSS which is really just basic 
SharePoint that points to our existing DB) does have the "Edit" option from the 
document listing. We can check in and checkout, etc, but Edit doesn't work.  It 
works fine on our old SharePoint server so we know it's specific to the 
SharePoint server itself.

Anyone seen this and have a fix? Google-Fu mostly shows client-side fixes.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Web based scanning tool

[Ziots, Edward]

Depending on your industry, I would settle on a framework like NIST
800-53V3 coupled with Government Regulations ( SOX, HIPAA, PCI) as a
risk management platform for your systems. Also ISO 27001:2005 and
27002:2005, along with COBIT are also good choices. 

You can also check out the RISK IT and VAL IT from www.isaca.org

Z

Edward Ziots
CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA
Network Engineer
Lifespan Organization
401-639-3505
ezi...@lifespan.org


-Original Message-
From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

IT audits have always been the last place they look here and they only
skim
us.
We have been using everything we can find, SOX, Hippa, GBLa, Nessus,
stuff
like that.
Now since the regulators are breathing down their necks they are coming
for
us.
No big deal I just like to know ahead of time where to verify.
They speak of the FDCC and the CAG audit guidelines as their base.
We can handle it I am just having a hard time finding this old tool...

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:39 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

ouch... seems like a way of getting you guys behind the 8-ball.  Did
they
pull FDCC out of their hats?  I would think you'd know what standard
they're
using before they actually come in, though...

>>> "David W. McSpadden"  5/28/2010 9:32 AM >>>
Isn't that subservant?

Anyways, auditors are in and ask us if we have heard of FDCC, we say no
because they have never mentioned them.  They say they will be using
that as

There baseline from now on.
We say ok.
Now I know I have seen an high level pc scanner or audit tool or
whatever
that shows you guidelines for GPO settings etc...

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

In your case, EZ, compliant to Shookie.

>>> "Ziots, Edward"  5/28/2010 8:46 AM >>>
Compliant to what exactly? 

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

401-639-3505

ezi...@lifespan.org 

 

From: Malcolm Reitz [mailto:malcolm.re...@live.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

 

Sounds like maybe something from http://www.onguardonline.gov? I don't
think the more technical sites http://csrc.nist.gov or  
http://www.us-cert.gov will have online tools like that.

 

-Malcolm

 

From: David McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 07:35
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Web based scanning tool

 

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings
to be compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP
scanner.  I can not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov
or frc.gov or something official sounding

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT: DVD burning software

[John Cook]

Imgburn rocks for making iso files!

John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
315 SE 2nd Ave
Gainesville, Fl 32601
Office (352) 393-2741 x320
Cell (352) 215-6944
Fax (352) 393-2746
MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4


-Original Message-
From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software

I've been using cdburnerxp for a long time, and am satisfied.  But never heard 
of Imgburn, and looking at the screenshots it looks rather neat-o... Got to 
give it a whirl someday.


Phillip Partipilo
Parametric Solutions Inc.
Jupiter, Florida
(561) 747-6107



-Original Message-
From: IS Technical [mailto:ist...@intsolcan.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software

+1

On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:04 -0400, David Mazzaccaro
wrote:

>cdburnerxp
>

>

>From: Manuel Santos [mailto:nel...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:07 PM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: Re: OT: DVD burning software


>I would suggest you AShampoo, that has even a free
version


>2010/5/27 Bill Songstad 


>   I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover
that I don't
>have the Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.
Does anybody have a
>recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I
know I can
>download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of
bloat that if I
>have to pay, I want something a little less full of
baloney.
>
>   Any feedback would be appreciated,
>
>
>   Bill

>

>

>


>

>


>.
>~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a
resource hog! ~
>~   ~


Regards,
Charles

---
   Charles Figueiredo PhD
   Integrated Solutions - Enhancing Small Business Systems
---



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or 
attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), 
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, 
dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without 
the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may 
be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 
(HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or 
disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties.
 Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really 
need to.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Modular malware

[Phillip Partipilo]

Maybe that's Apple's stance... Have any code that runs on your device forcibly 
vetted by a 3rd party, with you having no control whatsoever (well, aside from 
a JB)


Phillip Partipilo
Parametric Solutions Inc.
Jupiter, Florida
(561) 747-6107


From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Modular malware

Sooner or later we'll stop chasing bad code, because it will be too hard.

(Or, at the very least, we should significantly reduce our reliance on that 
type of functionality)

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:41 AM, David Lum 
mailto:david@nwea.org>> wrote:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=8857
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764











~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT: DVD burning software

[Phillip Partipilo]

I've been using cdburnerxp for a long time, and am satisfied.  But never heard 
of Imgburn, and looking at the screenshots it looks rather neat-o... Got to 
give it a whirl someday.


Phillip Partipilo
Parametric Solutions Inc.
Jupiter, Florida
(561) 747-6107



-Original Message-
From: IS Technical [mailto:ist...@intsolcan.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: DVD burning software

+1

On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:04 -0400, David Mazzaccaro
wrote:

>cdburnerxp
>

>

>From: Manuel Santos [mailto:nel...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:07 PM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: Re: OT: DVD burning software


>I would suggest you AShampoo, that has even a free
version


>2010/5/27 Bill Songstad 


>   I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover
that I don't
>have the Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.
Does anybody have a
>recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I
know I can
>download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of
bloat that if I
>have to pay, I want something a little less full of
baloney.
>
>   Any feedback would be appreciated,
>
>
>   Bill

>

>

>


>

>


>.
>~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a
resource hog! ~
>~   ~


Regards,
Charles

---
   Charles Figueiredo PhD
   Integrated Solutions - Enhancing Small Business Systems
---



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Modular malware

[Andrew S. Baker]

Sooner or later we'll stop chasing bad code, because it will be too hard.

(Or, at the very least, we should significantly reduce our reliance on that
type of functionality)

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:41 AM, David Lum  wrote:

>  http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=8857
>
> *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER
> NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
> (Desk) 971.222.1025 *// *(Cell) 503.267.9764
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Web based scanning tool

[Fogarty, Richard R Mr CTR USA USASOC USA]

I think what you might be looking for is the www.disa.mil site.  It has
Security Guides (STIGs) as well as a tool that will scan your servers and
workstations for any of the known vulnerabilities.  I think, however, that
this tool (DISA Gold Disk) is supported from a .mil address.


Rick

 

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:46 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

 

Compliant to what exactly? 

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

401-639-3505

ezi...@lifespan.org

 

From: Malcolm Reitz [mailto:malcolm.re...@live.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

 

Sounds like maybe something from http://www.onguardonline.gov
http://www.onguardonline.gov> ? I don't think the more technical
sites http://csrc.nist.gov http://csrc.nist.gov>  or
http://www.us-cert.gov http://www.us-cert.gov>  will have online
tools like that.

 

-Malcolm

 

From: David McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 07:35
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Web based scanning tool

 

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings to be
compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP scanner.  I can
not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov or frc.gov or
something official sounding..

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Web based scanning tool

[David W. McSpadden]

IT audits have always been the last place they look here and they only skim
us.
We have been using everything we can find, SOX, Hippa, GBLa, Nessus, stuff
like that.
Now since the regulators are breathing down their necks they are coming for
us.
No big deal I just like to know ahead of time where to verify.
They speak of the FDCC and the CAG audit guidelines as their base.
We can handle it I am just having a hard time finding this old tool...

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:39 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

ouch... seems like a way of getting you guys behind the 8-ball.  Did they
pull FDCC out of their hats?  I would think you'd know what standard they're
using before they actually come in, though...

>>> "David W. McSpadden"  5/28/2010 9:32 AM >>>
Isn't that subservant?

Anyways, auditors are in and ask us if we have heard of FDCC, we say no
because they have never mentioned them.  They say they will be using that as

There baseline from now on.
We say ok.
Now I know I have seen an high level pc scanner or audit tool or whatever
that shows you guidelines for GPO settings etc...

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

In your case, EZ, compliant to Shookie.

>>> "Ziots, Edward"  5/28/2010 8:46 AM >>>
Compliant to what exactly? 

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

401-639-3505

ezi...@lifespan.org 

 

From: Malcolm Reitz [mailto:malcolm.re...@live.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

 

Sounds like maybe something from http://www.onguardonline.gov? I don't
think the more technical sites http://csrc.nist.gov or  
http://www.us-cert.gov will have online tools like that.

 

-Malcolm

 

From: David McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 07:35
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Web based scanning tool

 

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings
to be compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP
scanner.  I can not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov
or frc.gov or something official sounding

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Web based scanning tool

[Joseph Heaton]

ouch... seems like a way of getting you guys behind the 8-ball.  Did they pull 
FDCC out of their hats?  I would think you'd know what standard they're using 
before they actually come in, though...

>>> "David W. McSpadden"  5/28/2010 9:32 AM >>>
Isn't that subservant?

Anyways, auditors are in and ask us if we have heard of FDCC, we say no
because they have never mentioned them.  They say they will be using that as

There baseline from now on.
We say ok.
Now I know I have seen an high level pc scanner or audit tool or whatever
that shows you guidelines for GPO settings etc...

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

In your case, EZ, compliant to Shookie.

>>> "Ziots, Edward"  5/28/2010 8:46 AM >>>
Compliant to what exactly? 

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

401-639-3505

ezi...@lifespan.org 

 

From: Malcolm Reitz [mailto:malcolm.re...@live.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

 

Sounds like maybe something from http://www.onguardonline.gov? I don't
think the more technical sites http://csrc.nist.gov or  
http://www.us-cert.gov will have online tools like that.

 

-Malcolm

 

From: David McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 07:35
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Web based scanning tool

 

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings
to be compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP
scanner.  I can not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov
or frc.gov or something official sounding

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Web based scanning tool

[David W. McSpadden]

Isn't that subservant?

Anyways, auditors are in and ask us if we have heard of FDCC, we say no
because they have never mentioned them.  They say they will be using that as

There baseline from now on.
We say ok.
Now I know I have seen an high level pc scanner or audit tool or whatever
that shows you guidelines for GPO settings etc...

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

In your case, EZ, compliant to Shookie.

>>> "Ziots, Edward"  5/28/2010 8:46 AM >>>
Compliant to what exactly? 

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

401-639-3505

ezi...@lifespan.org 

 

From: Malcolm Reitz [mailto:malcolm.re...@live.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

 

Sounds like maybe something from http://www.onguardonline.gov? I don't
think the more technical sites http://csrc.nist.gov or  
http://www.us-cert.gov will have online tools like that.

 

-Malcolm

 

From: David McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 07:35
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Web based scanning tool

 

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings
to be compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP
scanner.  I can not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov
or frc.gov or something official sounding

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Web based scanning tool

[Joseph Heaton]

In your case, EZ, compliant to Shookie.

>>> "Ziots, Edward"  5/28/2010 8:46 AM >>>
Compliant to what exactly? 

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

401-639-3505

ezi...@lifespan.org 

 

From: Malcolm Reitz [mailto:malcolm.re...@live.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

 

Sounds like maybe something from http://www.onguardonline.gov? I don't
think the more technical sites http://csrc.nist.gov or  
http://www.us-cert.gov will have online tools like that.

 

-Malcolm

 

From: David McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 07:35
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Web based scanning tool

 

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings
to be compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP
scanner.  I can not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov
or frc.gov or something official sounding

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT: DVD burning software

[IS Technical]

+1

On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:04 -0400, David Mazzaccaro 
wrote:

>cdburnerxp
> 

>

>From: Manuel Santos [mailto:nel...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:07 PM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: Re: OT: DVD burning software


>I would suggest you AShampoo, that has even a free 
version


>2010/5/27 Bill Songstad 


>   I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover 
that I don't
>have the Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.  
Does anybody have a
>recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I 
know I can
>download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of 
bloat that if I
>have to pay, I want something a little less full of 
baloney.
>
>   Any feedback would be appreciated,
>
>   
>   Bill

>

>   

>


> 

> 


>.
>~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a 
resource hog! ~
>~   ~


Regards,
Charles

---
   Charles Figueiredo PhD 
   Integrated Solutions - Enhancing Small Business Systems
---



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Web based scanning tool

[Ziots, Edward]

Compliant to what exactly? 

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

401-639-3505

ezi...@lifespan.org

 

From: Malcolm Reitz [mailto:malcolm.re...@live.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Web based scanning tool

 

Sounds like maybe something from http://www.onguardonline.gov? I don't
think the more technical sites http://csrc.nist.gov or  
http://www.us-cert.gov will have online tools like that.

 

-Malcolm

 

From: David McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 07:35
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Web based scanning tool

 

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings
to be compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP
scanner.  I can not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov
or frc.gov or something official sounding

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Web based scanning tool

[Malcolm Reitz]

Sounds like maybe something from http://www.onguardonline.gov? I don't think
the more technical sites http://csrc.nist.gov or  http://www.us-cert.gov
will have online tools like that.

 

-Malcolm

 

From: David McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 07:35
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Web based scanning tool

 

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings to be
compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP scanner.  I can
not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov or frc.gov or
something official sounding..

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."



 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

[Ziots, Edward]

+2 for separate Admin accounts. Using DA ( domain Admin) for daily tasks
is basically playing russian roulette and the gun is pointed at your
face. 

 

Least privilege to get the job done or accomplish the task and no more.
Sometimes its politically infeasible in some organization/businesses but
its not technically infeasible in most situations. 

 

As we all argued before in other threads, AV isn't going to catch
everything, if you combine with IPS/IDS at the workstation there will be
increased protection and increased troubleshooting pain when things
don't work, so balance accordingly. 

 

Also there is more 0 days out there that you don't know about that are
being used, they only come to light after there is a detectable spread
of the exploit and then its labeled an 0 day. 

 

Sincerely,

EZ

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

401-639-3505

ezi...@lifespan.org

 

From: Phil Garven [mailto:ph...@sunbeltsoftware.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 8:25 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

 

IT people tend to do a lot of testing on their machines which often
involves disabling AV.

 

A few years ago I got infected through a zero day bug in Firefox, I
visited a well known blog and a cmd prompt flashed up and disappeared
very quickly but I knew what had happened. I was using Symantec at the
time and Symantec didn't detect the Trojan but it did detect and block
the other viruses that the Trojan tried to download.

So I was infected with one virus but not all the other viruses - if I
had been logged on as a domain admin then that one virus could have
infected other machines including servers and if they didn't have AV
they would have downloaded and run all the other viruses as well.

 

I've encountered quite a few environments where some old server in a
back room somewhere is infected and attacking the rest of the network
even though no-one ever logs on to it.

 

Regards,


Phil Garven



From: Crawford, Scott [mailto:crawfo...@evangel.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:38 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

 

Not to nitpick, but I want to nit pick J

 

RE: "But no one uses the internet on the exchange server so we don't
have AV on it"

 

How is this relevant? If the AV on the workstation the DA is logged into
didn't catch the virus, why would the save AV software on the Exchange
server catch it? Or, are you suggesting that different AV be installed
on various servers?

 

From: Phil Garven [mailto:ph...@sunbeltsoftware.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

 

+1 on separate accounts for admins

 

Log on with a user account (maybe a local admin) and use "run as" to run
your admin programs as your domain admin or equivalent account.

 

If you log on as a domain admin and get a virus (happens to the best of
us) then that virus is running as a domain admin and sending itself to
your exchange server and remotely executing. "But no one uses the
internet on the exchange server so we don't have AV on it"

 

Regards,


Phil Garven

Sunbelt Software



From: Free, Bob [mailto:r...@pge.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:43 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

 

2-3 is max for any environment IMO. Everything else should be dome with
delegations. They must be your most proficient admins, not any old new
hire.

 

Check out some of joe Richard's rants about it, he ran a multi-nationl
Global 5 firm with 3 EA /DA level admins who were, as he put it, all
close enough to smack each other. (+ 1 manager who had the keys in a
break glass/locked safe scenario)

 

Personally, I am a fan of 3 accounts per admin for those enterprise
level admins, 1 uberadminID (DA/EA), 1 regular adminID with appropriate
delegations like all administrators should have and the usual day-to-day
userID

 

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:39 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

 

What are your guy's prerequisites on someone having a Domain Admin
account - assume a medium or large company and 4-5+ Systems Engineers.
Previously here they've just had every new SE hire be domain admin, I'm
thinking it's time to change that practice but I'll need some ammo and a
plan before I have any hope of changing this.

 

My thinking is along the line of "need to know what's going in this AD
structure" as well as being proficient in all things AD, etc.

 

Thoughts comments? I'm thinking there should only be 2-3 DA accounts max
per domain max.

David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER 
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764

 

 

 

 

 

... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Fina

Re: Fixed: RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:52 AM, David Lum  wrote:
> And now, 30 minutes later, it works with no other changes on my part.

  Could be a DNS resolver somewhere had the old record cached.

  There is a cache on every Windows client (well, since XP, at least).
 You can clear that cache with "IPCONFIG /FlushDNS".  If you have any
nameservers between the client and an authoritative nameserver for the
domain, those will also have a cache.

  Guess we'll never know.  This is why I recommended testing DNS explicitly.  :)

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

[David Lum]

There was a "+" behind it :)

From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 5:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

Hi,

A large company with 5 SEs? What company is this? :)

The only Domain Admins should be those people who are responsible for Active 
Directory.

Cheers
Ken

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 4:39 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

What are your guy's prerequisites on someone having a Domain Admin account - 
assume a medium or large company and 4-5+ Systems Engineers. Previously here 
they've just had every new SE hire be domain admin, I'm thinking it's time to 
change that practice but I'll need some ammo and a plan before I have any hope 
of changing this.

My thinking is along the line of "need to know what's going in this AD 
structure" as well as being proficient in all things AD, etc.

Thoughts comments? I'm thinking there should only be 2-3 DA accounts max per 
domain max.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Fixed: RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[David Lum]

Oops

"Doesn't work" = "connects to the old server"

And now, 30 minutes later, it works with no other changes on my part. Must have 
been some Win7 timeout before looking elsewhere. I didn't make it to an XP box 
to test out before it started working on my box.

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 6:41 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:09 AM, David Lum  wrote:
> while the http://FQDN of the alias works, using just http://hostname  doesn't.

  Explain "doesn't work".  Can't resolve the name?  Timeout
connecting?  Error message?  Flames come out of the computer?

> Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of
> ServerA, and HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.local works, but
> http://SharePointNew does not.

  First, on *any* DNS problem, query all the configured DNS servers
directly to see what they are saying.  Try both implicit suffixes and
fully-qualified names.  For example:

nslookup -type=any SharePointNew dns1.ourcompany.local.
nslookup -type=any SharePointNew dns2.ourcompany.local.
nslookup -type=any SharePointNew.ourcompany.local. 
dns1.ourcompany.local.
nslookup -type=any SharePointNew.ourcompany.local. 
dns2.ourcompany.local.

  Please note the dots at the end of domain names are syntactically significant.

  Then compare that to what a tool which uses the Windows name
resolution functions says.  For example:

ping SharePointNew
ping SharePointNew.ourcompany.local.

> That it would be a NetBIOS thing right?

  Maybe.  Try querying NetBIOS/WINS directly.  I'm not awayre of a
good way to do that using 'doze tools, but "nmblookup" from the Samba
suite works well.  For example:

nmblookup commons
nmblookup -U wins_server_name -R commons

  The first uses broadcast resolution, the second sends a unicast
query to the WINS server you name, and asks for recursive resolution
(non-local names).

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~




~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Firewall recommendations

[Erik Goldoff]

And FWIW, my understanding is that Fortigate was created by those that left
Netscreen prior to the Juniper absorbtion, and Netscreens weren’t so bad
either !

 

Erik Goldoff

IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

'  Security is an ongoing process, not a one time event ! '

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 7:25 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Firewall recommendations

 

+1

 

They have a range of products that will handle both small and mid-sized
clients with ease.


-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker



On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Tom Miller  wrote:

So easy.  I have a 300A for HQ here and a number of 30 and 50 units for
smaller sites.  You can have it up and running in an hour or two, then add
complexity to suite your needs.  There is a browser interface I usually use,
and occationally I'll use a cli for more advanced stuff.

 

I've been using Fortinet products for at least five years and find them to
be very reliable.  

>>> Jonathan Kadoo  05/27/10 5:09 PM >>> 

Good afternoon everyone, just a quick question. I have noticed a few 
emails regarding firewalls for smb clients. A number have recommended 
the Fortigate products. Just wondering about how easy or difficult 
are these units to configure? I would like to try them out with a 
client of mine. 

Jonathan 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[Jonathan Link]

I'm probably talking out of my hat, but when I have issues like this, I look
at WINS and also flush the resolver cache on a workstation...
These things typically shake out after a few days, except for WINS,
sometimes I need to delete the record manually.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:09 AM, David Lum  wrote:

>  I have an internal website we connect to by 
> http://http://%3cdnsalias/>>.
> This morning I changed the alias to point to a new server, but while the
> http://FQDN  of the alias works, using just 
> http://hostnamedoesn’t.
>
>
>
> Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of
> ServerA, and 
> HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.localworks,
>  but
> http://SharePointNew  does not.
>
>
>
> That it would be a NetBIOS thing right? We use WINS, but I see no entry for
> COMMONS that would tell me something other than DNS is resolving that host
> name.
>
> *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER
> NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
> (Desk) 971.222.1025 *// *(Cell) 503.267.9764
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:09 AM, David Lum  wrote:
> while the http://FQDN of the alias works, using just http://hostname  doesn’t.

  Explain "doesn't work".  Can't resolve the name?  Timeout
connecting?  Error message?  Flames come out of the computer?

> Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of
> ServerA, and HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.local works, but
> http://SharePointNew does not.

  First, on *any* DNS problem, query all the configured DNS servers
directly to see what they are saying.  Try both implicit suffixes and
fully-qualified names.  For example:

nslookup -type=any SharePointNew dns1.ourcompany.local.
nslookup -type=any SharePointNew dns2.ourcompany.local.
nslookup -type=any SharePointNew.ourcompany.local. 
dns1.ourcompany.local.
nslookup -type=any SharePointNew.ourcompany.local. 
dns2.ourcompany.local.

  Please note the dots at the end of domain names are syntactically significant.

  Then compare that to what a tool which uses the Windows name
resolution functions says.  For example:

ping SharePointNew
ping SharePointNew.ourcompany.local.

> That it would be a NetBIOS thing right?

  Maybe.  Try querying NetBIOS/WINS directly.  I'm not awayre of a
good way to do that using 'doze tools, but "nmblookup" from the Samba
suite works well.  For example:

nmblookup commons
nmblookup -U wins_server_name -R commons

  The first uses broadcast resolution, the second sends a unicast
query to the WINS server you name, and asks for recursive resolution
(non-local names).

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[Ken Schaefer]

Then you need to get a packet capture to definitively find out how the client 
is resolving that name to an IP.

(that's not to say you won't have other issues, but like the OSI discussion has 
told us, you'll need to work up from the lowest level)

Cheers
Ken

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 11:32 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

Q. Where does your client think that http://sharepointnew resolves to?

A. The old server

Dave

From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 6:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

Where does your client think that http://sharepointnew resolves to? Does it 
resolve to the correct remote address? (if so, then you have a SharePoint or 
IIS configuration problem)

If it doesn't resolve to the correct remote address, then perhaps a packet 
capture may tell you what's going on.

Cheers
Ken

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 11:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

I have an internal website we connect to by 
http://http://%3cDNSAlias>>. This morning I changed the alias to 
point to a new server, but while the http://FQDN of the alias works, using just 
http://hostname doesn't.

Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of 
ServerA, and HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.local works, but 
http://SharePointNew does not.

That it would be a NetBIOS thing right? We use WINS, but I see no entry for 
COMMONS that would tell me something other than DNS is resolving that host name.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764














~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[David Lum]

Q. Where does your client think that http://sharepointnew resolves to?

A. The old server

Dave

From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 6:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

Where does your client think that http://sharepointnew resolves to? Does it 
resolve to the correct remote address? (if so, then you have a SharePoint or 
IIS configuration problem)

If it doesn't resolve to the correct remote address, then perhaps a packet 
capture may tell you what's going on.

Cheers
Ken

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 11:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

I have an internal website we connect to by 
http://http://%3cDNSAlias>>. This morning I changed the alias to 
point to a new server, but while the http://FQDN of the alias works, using just 
http://hostname doesn't.

Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of 
ServerA, and HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.local works, but 
http://SharePointNew does not.

That it would be a NetBIOS thing right? We use WINS, but I see no entry for 
COMMONS that would tell me something other than DNS is resolving that host name.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[Robert Cato]

If this is SharePoint, look at AAC in Central Admin.

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:09 AM, David Lum  wrote:
> I have an internal website we connect to by http://. This morning
> I changed the alias to point to a new server, but while the http://FQDN of
> the alias works, using just http://hostname doesn’t.
>
>
>
> Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of
> ServerA, and HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.local works, but
> http://SharePointNew does not.
>
>
>
> That it would be a NetBIOS thing right? We use WINS, but I see no entry for
> COMMONS that would tell me something other than DNS is resolving that host
> name.
>
> David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
> NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
> (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[Brian Desmond]

You should get a network trace. Different apps devolve DNS records differently 
plus you need to factor in suffix search order and such.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c   - 312.731.3132

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 8:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

I have an internal website we connect to by 
http://http://%3cDNSAlias>>. This morning I changed the alias to 
point to a new server, but while the http://FQDN of the alias works, using just 
http://hostname doesn't.

Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of 
ServerA, and HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.local works, but 
http://SharePointNew does not.

That it would be a NetBIOS thing right? We use WINS, but I see no entry for 
COMMONS that would tell me something other than DNS is resolving that host name.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764






~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[Ken Schaefer]

Where does your client think that http://sharepointnew resolves to? Does it 
resolve to the correct remote address? (if so, then you have a SharePoint or 
IIS configuration problem)

If it doesn't resolve to the correct remote address, then perhaps a packet 
capture may tell you what's going on.

Cheers
Ken

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 11:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

I have an internal website we connect to by 
http://http://%3cDNSAlias>>. This morning I changed the alias to 
point to a new server, but while the http://FQDN of the alias works, using just 
http://hostname doesn't.

Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of 
ServerA, and HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.local works, but 
http://SharePointNew does not.

That it would be a NetBIOS thing right? We use WINS, but I see no entry for 
COMMONS that would tell me something other than DNS is resolving that host name.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764






~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: laptop encryption

[Ken Schaefer]

Agreed.

There are too many situations where it's not feasible to expect that people can 
work with a permanent VPN/remote connection.

Cheers
Ken

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 10:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: laptop encryption

While you can keep things from being *permanently* stored on a laptop, it's not 
practical to ask that no data of any value ever reside on it, unless there is 
some facility for ensuring remote connectivity at all times.

So, important people with laptops will almost certainly have important data on 
there for some period of time, if only until they can get it synced up with a 
better location.

In the meantime, the data has to be protected.

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Alex Eckelberry 
mailto:al...@sunbelt-software.com>> wrote:
Not the answer you're looking for, but what about a different thought?  Don't 
keep anything of value on a laptop.  Only run laptops client/server (VPN or TS 
or whatever).

Alex


From: Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:58 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: laptop encryption

There was a post last week about HIPAA compliance and a small part of that 
discussion there were a couple of encryption programs mentioned.  I have 
bitlocker running on the OS's that happen to come with it, and need something 
for those that don't.  Might consider OS upgrade if the encryption piece is too 
costly.

anyone using something they LOVE?  any chance there is a program that will 
report encryption status back to a management station?

tiafah.

Jeff



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

DNS alias change, no http to alias unless FQDN

[David Lum]

I have an internal website we connect to by 
http://http://%3cDNSAlias>>. This morning I changed the alias to 
point to a new server, but while the http://FQDN of the alias works, using just 
http://hostname doesn't.

Example: DNS alias is a CNAME of SharePointNew pointing to a host name of 
ServerA, and HTTP://SharePointNew.ourcompany.local works, but 
http://SharePointNew does not.

That it would be a NetBIOS thing right? We use WINS, but I see no entry for 
COMMONS that would tell me something other than DNS is resolving that host name.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Firewall recommendations

[Tom Miller]

Fortinet also has some very large clients from what I'm told.  A number of 
Universities use those products, at least my sales rep tells me so (and we all 
believe everything our sales reps tell us, don't we)
 
Of course my last firewall was BorderManager before I moved us away from the 
stone age.  I used to call it BorderMangler.  

>>> "Andrew S. Baker"  5/28/2010 7:24 AM >>>
+1


They have a range of products that will handle both small and mid-sized clients 
with ease.

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker 


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Tom Miller  wrote:


So easy. I have a 300A for HQ here and a number of 30 and 50 units for smaller 
sites. You can have it up and running in an hour or two, then add complexity to 
suite your needs. There is a browser interface I usually use, and occationally 
I'll use a cli for more advanced stuff.
I've been using Fortinet products for at least five years and find them to be 
very reliable. 

>>> Jonathan Kadoo  05/27/10 5:09 PM >>> 
Good afternoon everyone, just a quick question. I have noticed a few 
emails regarding firewalls for smb clients. A number have recommended 
the Fortigate products. Just wondering about how easy or difficult 
are these units to configure? I would like to try them out with a 
client of mine. 

Jonathan 




 
 

Confidentiality Notice:  This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the 
sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or 
distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: laptop encryption

[Andrew S. Baker]

While you can keep things from being *permanently* stored on a laptop, it's
not practical to ask that no data of any value ever reside on it, unless
there is some facility for ensuring remote connectivity at all times.

So, important people with laptops will almost certainly have important data
on there for some period of time, if only until they can get it synced up
with a better location.

In the meantime, the data has to be protected.

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Alex Eckelberry  wrote:

>  Not the answer you’re looking for, but what about a different thought?
> Don’t keep anything of value on a laptop.  Only run laptops client/server
> (VPN or TS or whatever).
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:58 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* laptop encryption
>
>
>
> There was a post last week about HIPAA compliance and a small part of that
> discussion there were a couple of encryption programs mentioned.  I have
> bitlocker running on the OS's that happen to come with it, and need
> something for those that don't.  Might consider OS upgrade if the encryption
> piece is too costly.
>
>
>
> anyone using something they LOVE?  any chance there is a program that will
> report encryption status back to a management station?
>
>
>
> tiafah.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: laptop encryption

[Ken Schaefer]

Bitlocker has a huge impact on high-performance disks (e.g. SSDs). On the plus 
side, Bitlocker has the management tools in place for recovery.

It's all when and good to use disk-level encryption or TruCrypt (I use the 
latter). But if you have 10k+ machines to manage, you need centralised recovery 
management...

Cheers
Ken

From: Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 1:25 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: laptop encryption

I have only used bitlocker so far and have not notice performance issue.  Is 
truecrypt going to punk out my portables?
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Sam Cayze 
mailto:sam.ca...@rollouts.com>> wrote:
I opted for encryption at the hardware level via FDE disks.  No performance 
decrease, however, no central management.  It's so easy and set and forget, 
that I don't mind that.

Sam

From: Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: laptop encryption

There was a post last week about HIPAA compliance and a small part of that 
discussion there were a couple of encryption programs mentioned.  I have 
bitlocker running on the OS's that happen to come with it, and need something 
for those that don't.  Might consider OS upgrade if the encryption piece is too 
costly.

anyone using something they LOVE?  any chance there is a program that will 
report encryption status back to a management station?

tiafah.

Jeff














~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

[Ken Schaefer]

Hi,

A large company with 5 SEs? What company is this? :)

The only Domain Admins should be those people who are responsible for Active 
Directory.

Cheers
Ken

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 4:39 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

What are your guy's prerequisites on someone having a Domain Admin account - 
assume a medium or large company and 4-5+ Systems Engineers. Previously here 
they've just had every new SE hire be domain admin, I'm thinking it's time to 
change that practice but I'll need some ammo and a plan before I have any hope 
of changing this.

My thinking is along the line of "need to know what's going in this AD 
structure" as well as being proficient in all things AD, etc.

Thoughts comments? I'm thinking there should only be 2-3 DA accounts max per 
domain max.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764






~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

[Ken Schaefer]

Some orgs have this. I'm in one place where we have separate products for 
workstations, servers and mobile devices (i.e. three separate vendors) for just 
this reason. Not to mention that Exchange and SharePoint have yet another 
product (Forefront). The QA process for releasing daily updates though...

But I agree with your nitpick. If you have a single product, there is no point, 
unless the vendor releases separate updates for a desktop scanning product vs 
an Exchange aware mail scanning product (MS, for example, would have separate 
releases for MSE/Forefront client vs Forefront Security for Exchange).

Cheers
Ken

From: Crawford, Scott [mailto:crawfo...@evangel.edu]
Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 7:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

Not to nitpick, but I want to nit pick :)

RE: "But no one uses the internet on the exchange server so we don't have AV on 
it"

How is this relevant? If the AV on the workstation the DA is logged into didn't 
catch the virus, why would the save AV software on the Exchange server catch 
it? Or, are you suggesting that different AV be installed on various servers?

From: Phil Garven [mailto:ph...@sunbeltsoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

+1 on separate accounts for admins

Log on with a user account (maybe a local admin) and use "run as" to run your 
admin programs as your domain admin or equivalent account.

If you log on as a domain admin and get a virus (happens to the best of us) 
then that virus is running as a domain admin and sending itself to your 
exchange server and remotely executing. "But no one uses the internet on the 
exchange server so we don't have AV on it"

Regards,

Phil Garven
Sunbelt Software

From: Free, Bob [mailto:r...@pge.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:43 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

2-3 is max for any environment IMO. Everything else should be dome with 
delegations. They must be your most proficient admins, not any old new hire.

Check out some of joe Richard's rants about it, he ran a multi-nationl Global 5 
firm with 3 EA /DA level admins who were, as he put it, all close enough to 
smack each other. (+ 1 manager who had the keys in a break glass/locked safe 
scenario)

Personally, I am a fan of 3 accounts per admin for those enterprise level 
admins, 1 uberadminID (DA/EA), 1 regular adminID with appropriate delegations 
like all administrators should have and the usual day-to-day userID

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:39 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

What are your guy's prerequisites on someone having a Domain Admin account - 
assume a medium or large company and 4-5+ Systems Engineers. Previously here 
they've just had every new SE hire be domain admin, I'm thinking it's time to 
change that practice but I'll need some ammo and a plan before I have any hope 
of changing this.

My thinking is along the line of "need to know what's going in this AD 
structure" as well as being proficient in all things AD, etc.

Thoughts comments? I'm thinking there should only be 2-3 DA accounts max per 
domain max.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764









...









~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Web based scanning tool

[David McSpadden]

A long while ago there was a .gov site that had a web based scanner.  It
would scan your pc and then give you the recommended security settings
to be compliant.  It had and NT scanner, 2000 scanner, and an XP
scanner.  I can not for the life of me remember it right now.  Nist.gov
or frc.gov or something official sounding

 

"Please consider the environment before printing this email."

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service

[Rod Trent]

Yeah…to me, that’s what their marketing message is.  If they want to be
legit, they need to promote it as a business solution.

 

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 8:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service

 

Agreed.  I was checking it out for use at home myself.

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Rod Trent  wrote:

For 10 computers or less and 100 scans a month – sounds like they are
targeting home users.

 

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:50 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service

 

I played with this at home several months ago after reading something Susan
Bradley wrote about it.  It just flat didn't work.  Your post prompted me to
go back and try again, and I did have some success this time.  I can
remotely scan and patch XP and Server 2008 (not R2) machines on my home LAN,
but I cannot, under any set of circumstances that I can create, remotely
scan a Windows 7 machine.  Firewall off, UAC off,
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\LocalAccountT
okenFilterPolicy created and set to either 0 or 1 - no combination of things
I tried would allow a successful scan of a remote Win7 computer.  (All of my
Windows 7 machines are x64.  I wasn't able to try against 32 bit Win7.)  I
can scan and patch locally on Windows 7 with no problem.

 

It's a neat idea (if you don't mind a LOT of potentially private information
stored in the cloud), but I wouldn't think it's anywhere near a 1.0 product.
More like early beta.

 

As always, YMMV.

 

RS

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming 
wrote:

Might be useful to small-LAN admins:

= Included Stuff Follows =
Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service

   Patch management company Shavlik is offering small networks of 10 or
fewer
   PCs access to a new online patch management service at no cost.

   The new service, IT.Shavlik.com, is designed to scan for missing patches
   on a machine-by-machine basis, or using an IP address range or domain,
   reporting the results through the web portal. Missing patches across
   Windows versions are rated for severity and can be downloaded using links
   to the appropriate vendor website or using the 'FixIT' button. The
service
   also supports VMWare ESX and ESXi hypervisors.

   ...

   Larger SMB networks can use the service in its 'Pro' form for a fee. The
   company quotes a price of 'from $250' (approx £175) for networks of
   between 10 and 1,000 PCs, which includes unlimited scan history storage.
   This is the sharper edge what the company admits is now a 'freemium'
   business model designed to lure users in with a free service before
   charging them as they grasp the value of the service or their needs grow.


= Included Stuff Ends =
More here with links:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/052610-shavlik-offers-cloud-patching-w
ith.html

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

[Phil Garven]

IT people tend to do a lot of testing on their machines which often involves 
disabling AV.

A few years ago I got infected through a zero day bug in Firefox, I visited a 
well known blog and a cmd prompt flashed up and disappeared very quickly but I 
knew what had happened. I was using Symantec at the time and Symantec didn't 
detect the Trojan but it did detect and block the other viruses that the Trojan 
tried to download.
So I was infected with one virus but not all the other viruses - if I had been 
logged on as a domain admin then that one virus could have infected other 
machines including servers and if they didn't have AV they would have 
downloaded and run all the other viruses as well.

I've encountered quite a few environments where some old server in a back room 
somewhere is infected and attacking the rest of the network even though no-one 
ever logs on to it.

Regards,

Phil Garven

From: Crawford, Scott [mailto:crawfo...@evangel.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:38 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

Not to nitpick, but I want to nit pick :)

RE: "But no one uses the internet on the exchange server so we don't have AV on 
it"

How is this relevant? If the AV on the workstation the DA is logged into didn't 
catch the virus, why would the save AV software on the Exchange server catch 
it? Or, are you suggesting that different AV be installed on various servers?

From: Phil Garven [mailto:ph...@sunbeltsoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

+1 on separate accounts for admins

Log on with a user account (maybe a local admin) and use "run as" to run your 
admin programs as your domain admin or equivalent account.

If you log on as a domain admin and get a virus (happens to the best of us) 
then that virus is running as a domain admin and sending itself to your 
exchange server and remotely executing. "But no one uses the internet on the 
exchange server so we don't have AV on it"

Regards,

Phil Garven
Sunbelt Software

From: Free, Bob [mailto:r...@pge.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:43 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

2-3 is max for any environment IMO. Everything else should be dome with 
delegations. They must be your most proficient admins, not any old new hire.

Check out some of joe Richard's rants about it, he ran a multi-nationl Global 5 
firm with 3 EA /DA level admins who were, as he put it, all close enough to 
smack each other. (+ 1 manager who had the keys in a break glass/locked safe 
scenario)

Personally, I am a fan of 3 accounts per admin for those enterprise level 
admins, 1 uberadminID (DA/EA), 1 regular adminID with appropriate delegations 
like all administrators should have and the usual day-to-day userID

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:39 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

What are your guy's prerequisites on someone having a Domain Admin account - 
assume a medium or large company and 4-5+ Systems Engineers. Previously here 
they've just had every new SE hire be domain admin, I'm thinking it's time to 
change that practice but I'll need some ammo and a plan before I have any hope 
of changing this.

My thinking is along the line of "need to know what's going in this AD 
structure" as well as being proficient in all things AD, etc.

Thoughts comments? I'm thinking there should only be 2-3 DA accounts max per 
domain max.
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764









...









~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: OT: DVD burning software

[Andrew S. Baker]

+1

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Peter van Houten wrote:

> http://www.imgburn.com
>
> --
> Peter van Houten
>
> On the 27 May, 2010 20:04, Bill Songstad wrote the following:
>
>  I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover that I don't have the
>> Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.  Does anybody have a
>> recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I know I can
>> download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of bloat that if I
>> have to pay, I want something a little less full of baloney.
>> Any feedback would be appreciated,
>> Bill
>>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service

[Richard Stovall]

Agreed.  I was checking it out for use at home myself.

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Rod Trent  wrote:

> For 10 computers or less and 100 scans a month – sounds like they are
> targeting home users.
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:50 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service
>
>
>
> I played with this at home several months ago after reading something Susan
> Bradley wrote about it.  It just flat didn't work.  Your post prompted me to
> go back and try again, and I did have some success this time.  I can
> remotely scan and patch XP and Server 2008 (not R2) machines on my home LAN,
> but I cannot, under any set of circumstances that I can create, remotely
> scan a Windows 7 machine.  Firewall off, UAC
> off, 
> HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\LocalAccountTokenFilterPolicy
> created and set to either 0 or 1 - no combination of things I tried would
> allow a successful scan of a remote Win7 computer.  (All of my Windows 7
> machines are x64.  I wasn't able to try against 32 bit Win7.)  I can scan
> and patch locally on Windows 7 with no problem.
>
>
>
> It's a neat idea (if you don't mind a LOT of potentially private
> information stored in the cloud), but I wouldn't think it's anywhere near a
> 1.0 product.  More like early beta.
>
>
>
> As always, YMMV.
>
>
>
> RS
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming 
> wrote:
>
> Might be useful to small-LAN admins:
>
> = Included Stuff Follows =
> Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service
>
>Patch management company Shavlik is offering small networks of 10 or
> fewer
>PCs access to a new online patch management service at no cost.
>
>The new service, IT.Shavlik.com, is designed to scan for missing
> patches
>on a machine-by-machine basis, or using an IP address range or domain,
>reporting the results through the web portal. Missing patches across
>Windows versions are rated for severity and can be downloaded using
> links
>to the appropriate vendor website or using the 'FixIT' button. The
> service
>also supports VMWare ESX and ESXi hypervisors.
>
>...
>
>Larger SMB networks can use the service in its 'Pro' form for a fee. The
>company quotes a price of 'from $250' (approx £175) for networks of
>between 10 and 1,000 PCs, which includes unlimited scan history storage.
>This is the sharper edge what the company admits is now a 'freemium'
>business model designed to lure users in with a free service before
>charging them as they grasp the value of the service or their needs
> grow.
>
>
> = Included Stuff Ends =
> More here with links:
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/052610-shavlik-offers-cloud-patching-with.html
>
> --
> Angus Scott-Fleming
> GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
> 1-520-290-5038
> Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service

[Rod Trent]

For 10 computers or less and 100 scans a month – sounds like they are
targeting home users.

 

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:50 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service

 

I played with this at home several months ago after reading something Susan
Bradley wrote about it.  It just flat didn't work.  Your post prompted me to
go back and try again, and I did have some success this time.  I can
remotely scan and patch XP and Server 2008 (not R2) machines on my home LAN,
but I cannot, under any set of circumstances that I can create, remotely
scan a Windows 7 machine.  Firewall off, UAC off,
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\LocalAccountT
okenFilterPolicy created and set to either 0 or 1 - no combination of things
I tried would allow a successful scan of a remote Win7 computer.  (All of my
Windows 7 machines are x64.  I wasn't able to try against 32 bit Win7.)  I
can scan and patch locally on Windows 7 with no problem.

 

It's a neat idea (if you don't mind a LOT of potentially private information
stored in the cloud), but I wouldn't think it's anywhere near a 1.0 product.
More like early beta.

 

As always, YMMV.

 

RS

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming 
wrote:

Might be useful to small-LAN admins:

= Included Stuff Follows =
Shavlik offers 'cloud patching' with free service

   Patch management company Shavlik is offering small networks of 10 or
fewer
   PCs access to a new online patch management service at no cost.

   The new service, IT.Shavlik.com, is designed to scan for missing patches
   on a machine-by-machine basis, or using an IP address range or domain,
   reporting the results through the web portal. Missing patches across
   Windows versions are rated for severity and can be downloaded using links
   to the appropriate vendor website or using the 'FixIT' button. The
service
   also supports VMWare ESX and ESXi hypervisors.

   ...

   Larger SMB networks can use the service in its 'Pro' form for a fee. The
   company quotes a price of 'from $250' (approx £175) for networks of
   between 10 and 1,000 PCs, which includes unlimited scan history storage.
   This is the sharper edge what the company admits is now a 'freemium'
   business model designed to lure users in with a free service before
   charging them as they grasp the value of the service or their needs grow.


= Included Stuff Ends =
More here with links:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/052610-shavlik-offers-cloud-patching-w
ith.html

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Firewall recommendations

[Andrew S. Baker]

+1

They have a range of products that will handle both small and mid-sized
clients with ease.

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Tom Miller  wrote:

> So easy.  I have a 300A for HQ here and a number of 30 and 50 units for
> smaller sites.  You can have it up and running in an hour or two, then add
> complexity to suite your needs.  There is a browser interface I usually use,
> and occationally I'll use a cli for more advanced stuff.
>
> I've been using Fortinet products for at least five years and find them to
> be very reliable.
>
> >>> Jonathan Kadoo  05/27/10 5:09 PM >>>
> Good afternoon everyone, just a quick question. I have noticed a few
> emails regarding firewalls for smb clients. A number have recommended
> the Fortigate products. Just wondering about how easy or difficult
> are these units to configure? I would like to try them out with a
> client of mine.
>
> Jonathan
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: What's your requirement to allow a user DA?

[Andrew S. Baker]

In principle, I support and advocate multiple user accounts.

In (recent) practice, I've been spoiled by UAC on Vista and Win7.  (Not
suggesting that it mitigates *all* risk, btw)

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Free, Bob  wrote:

>  2-3 is max for any environment IMO. Everything else should be dome with
> delegations. They must be your most proficient admins, not any old new hire.
>
>
>
> Check out some of joe Richard’s rants about it, he ran a multi-nationl
> Global 5 firm with 3 EA /DA level admins who were, as he put it, all close
> enough to smack each other. (+ 1 manager who had the keys in a break
> glass/locked safe scenario)
>
>
>
> Personally, I am a fan of 3 accounts per admin for those enterprise level
> admins, 1 uberadminID (DA/EA), 1 regular adminID with appropriate
> delegations like all administrators should have and the usual day-to-day
> userID
>
>
>
> *From:* David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:39 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* What's your requirement to allow a user DA?
>
>
>
> What are your guy’s prerequisites on someone having a Domain Admin account
> – assume a medium or large company and 4-5+ Systems Engineers. Previously
> here they’ve just had every new SE hire be domain admin, I’m thinking it’s
> time to change that practice but I’ll need some ammo and a plan before I
> have any hope of changing this.
>
>
>
> My thinking is along the line of “need to know what’s going in this AD
> structure” as well as being proficient in all things AD, etc.
>
>
>
> Thoughts comments? I’m thinking there should only be 2-3 DA accounts max
> per domain max.
>
> *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER
> NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
> (Desk) 971.222.1025
> *// *(Cell) 503.267.9764
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: OT: DVD burning software

[tony patton]

 +1

Regards

Tony Patton
Desktop Operations Cavan
Ext 8078
Direct Dial 049 435 2878
email: tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com



From:   Peter van Houten 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Date:   27/05/2010 19:11
Subject:Re: OT: DVD burning software



http://www.imgburn.com

--
Peter van Houten

On the 27 May, 2010 20:04, Bill Songstad wrote the following:
> I just rebuilt a XP workstation only to discover that I don't have the
> Nero disk that came with the DVD burner.  Does anybody have a
> recommendation for software to use in lieu of Nero?  I know I can
> download a full version of Nero, but it is so full of bloat that if I
> have to pay, I want something a little less full of baloney.
> Any feedback would be appreciated,
> Bill

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. The contents should 
not be copied nor disclosed to any other person. Any views or opinions 
expressed are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those 
of QUINN-Insurance Limited (Under Administration), unless otherwise
specifically stated . As internet communications are not secure,
QUINN-Insurance Limited (Under Administration) is not responsible for the 
contents of this message nor
responsible for any change made to this message after it was sent by the 
original sender. Although virus scanning is used on all inbound and outbound 
e-mail, we advise you to carry out your own virus check before opening any 
attachment. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of 
any software viruses.



QUINN-Insurance Limited (Under Administration) is regulated by the Financial 
Regulator and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK
business.



QUINN-Insurance Limited (Under Administration) is registered in Ireland, 
registration number
240768 and is a private company limited by shares. 
Its head office is at Dublin Road, Cavan, Co. Cavan.




This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, 
proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If you have received it in 
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.  Any other 
use of the email by you is prohibited.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~