RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[David Lum]

"Choose your battles wisely"

Aye - my request for Mac Mini (the OS can play with Active Directory) and Apple 
Remote Desktop (which does some SMS-y stuff like deploy software and query 
systems) not surprisingly got approved just like that today.

As I've said to my manager as well as my director - I'm not against Mac OS per 
se, I'm against the ability to manage said OS's in my AD environment. Their 
approval of my newest request restores some faith.

Dave

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

And yet you haven't left yet -- despite admitting that there are a myriad of 
things that are not the way you would like them to be (security-wise or 
operationally)

Like I said before:  choose your battles wisely.  While I harp on the need for 
strong security practices, I also recognize that there are plenty of risks that 
organizations willingly make because they feel that the cost of mitigating it 
is too high/limiting.


ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Kurt Buff 
mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Actually, in a sense it *is* my network. I'm given the responsibility,
and although not nearly enough authority, I do what I can.

If they want to change the policy, I'll either:

o- get the resources needed to deploy the new policy to keep the risk
to manageable levels

or

o- go somewhere where the stupidity isn't quite so thick.

Kurt

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 19:48, Gary Slinger 
mailto:gary.slin...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Until the CEO says 'make this work'.  It's not /your/ network.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kurt Buff mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com>>
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:37:15
> To: NT System Admin 
> Issuesmailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
> Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
> mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>Subject:
>  Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> I don't let non-corporate machines on my network without enforcing
> that they have a current version of a recognized brand of AV and that
> it's been updated within the past 5 days - I enforce that with the
> configuration of the of the SSL VPN appliance, which can query for
> that.
>
> It's almost certainly not foolproof, but it's the best that I can do,
> and if I had my way, I'd not let them on at all, except through an RDP
> session.
>
> Kurt
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:33,  
> mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various
>> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps
>> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
>> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
>> say no. YMMV, etc.
>>
>> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
>> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
>> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
>> that's all just my very humble opinion.
>>
>> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
>> moment
>>
>> 
>> From: James Hill 
>> mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
>> To: NT System Admin 
>> Issuesmailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
>> ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
>> mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
>> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>>
>> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE's and
>> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
>> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
>> finding.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
>> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
>> sounds great but it assumes that we won't be supporting the clients device.
>> We will just maintain the server environment.
>>
>>
>>
>> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won't happen.  We will have to
>> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
>> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
>> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
>> device but that wouldn't fly for any organisation I've worked for.
>>
>>
>>
>> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
>> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
>> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>>
>>
>>
>> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac's will attract and
>> help retain staff?
>>
>>
>>
>> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise
>> why are we allowing 

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Kurt Buff]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 20:52, Ben Scott  wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Kurt Buff  wrote:
>> No, I have already left. They just don't know it yet, because I
>> haven't found a new job yet. Nothing they are likely to do will keep
>> me there.
>
>  Except, perhaps, the continuing paycheck.

Only until I find another.

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Kurt Buff  wrote:
> No, I have already left. They just don't know it yet, because I
> haven't found a new job yet. Nothing they are likely to do will keep
> me there.

  Except, perhaps, the continuing paycheck.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[James Hill]

I agree with your points.  I just tend to see far more focus(and discussion) on 
accepting the current trend than I see on the tools and processes to manage it.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 12:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

While I don't necessarily disagree with your points, that ship has already 
sailed.

The business world is more about what they *can* do, than what they shouldn't 
do -- even in industries that you would otherwise equate with high risk.

Our job is to mitigate risk, improve productivity (of others, primarily), and 
just roll with the punches in general.

Over time, if it truly becomes an issue, then more vendors will rise up to 
address it, and it will become less of an issue.

There was a time when those in charge of technology argued that adding all 
those unmanageable PCs would cause the very end of life as we know it.  In some 
ways, they were right -- just not the ways they anticipated.  We have survived 
and thrived despite (or because of) the proliferation of desktop systems, and 
this trend is likely to continue.

If having personal PCs on your network violates your personal principles, then 
by all means, fight against it.  If not, well... choose your battles wisely and 
strategically, and don't use up all your political capital in one place.

And made sure you know how to lobby for the right tools to mitigate the likely 
risks.  Just make sure you're finding ways to add value to the organization, 
rather than simply opposing everything with even a modicum of risk attached to 
it.


ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:37 PM, James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>> wrote:
What's the costs in the long run though?  Unmanaged devices may have more down 
time which may result in unproductive workers.

It's new territory and I think it's wrong of us (the IT Pro community) to not 
strongly raise the many issues with moving down this path.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 8:20 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's not just about employee rights/freedom -- it's about managing costs.   
(They pay the same for the tech team whether we struggle with integration or 
not).

It costs less for organizations to avoid long-term contracts for mobile devices 
and computing devices if they can.

It's not always the BEST decision, but best is subjective in many cases, and 
that's nothing new anyway.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...


On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>> wrote:
The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE's and 
standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for 
consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault 
finding.

Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will 
just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This 
sounds great but it assumes that we won't be supporting the clients device.  We 
will just maintain the server environment.

In reality, regardless of policy, this just won't happen.  We will have to 
support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central 
administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be 
able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their device 
but that wouldn't fly for any organisation I've worked for.

Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then 
deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive hardware 
when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?

A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac's will attract and help 
retain staff?

In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise 
why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What's wrong with this is the 
job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.  No you 
can't bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave and yes you 
need to wear closed in shoes!

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not 
necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver, which 
can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's AppBlast is 
another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application to a browser 
over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some kind of virtual 
desktop on the back end, but the ide

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Kurt Buff]

No, I have already left. They just don't know it yet, because I
haven't found a new job yet. Nothing they are likely to do will keep
me there.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 20:18, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>
> And yet you haven't left yet -- despite admitting that there are a myriad of 
> things that are not the way you would like them to be (security-wise or 
> operationally)
>
> Like I said before:  choose your battles wisely.  While I harp on the need 
> for strong security practices, I also recognize that there are plenty of 
> risks that organizations willingly make because they feel that the cost of 
> mitigating it is too high/limiting.
>
>
>
> ASB
> http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker
> Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Kurt Buff  wrote:
>>
>> Actually, in a sense it *is* my network. I'm given the responsibility,
>> and although not nearly enough authority, I do what I can.
>>
>> If they want to change the policy, I'll either:
>>
>> o- get the resources needed to deploy the new policy to keep the risk
>> to manageable levels
>>
>> or
>>
>> o- go somewhere where the stupidity isn't quite so thick.
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 19:48, Gary Slinger  wrote:
>> > Until the CEO says 'make this work'.  It's not /your/ network.
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Kurt Buff 
>> > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:37:15
>> > To: NT System Admin Issues
>> > Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
>> > Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>> >
>> > I don't let non-corporate machines on my network without enforcing
>> > that they have a current version of a recognized brand of AV and that
>> > it's been updated within the past 5 days - I enforce that with the
>> > configuration of the of the SSL VPN appliance, which can query for
>> > that.
>> >
>> > It's almost certainly not foolproof, but it's the best that I can do,
>> > and if I had my way, I'd not let them on at all, except through an RDP
>> > session.
>> >
>> > Kurt
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:33,   wrote:
>> >> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various
>> >> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business 
>> >> apps
>> >> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
>> >> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
>> >> say no. YMMV, etc.
>> >>
>> >> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
>> >> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
>> >> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
>> >> that's all just my very humble opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
>> >> moment
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >> From: James Hill 
>> >> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
>> >> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> >> ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
>> >> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>> >>
>> >> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
>> >> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed 
>> >> for
>> >> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as 
>> >> fault
>> >> finding.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we 
>> >> will
>> >> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  
>> >> This
>> >> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients 
>> >> device.
>> >> We will just maintain the server environment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
>> >> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
>> >> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might 
>> >> be
>> >> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
>> >> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to 
>> >> then
>> >> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
>> >> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
>> >> help retain staff?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the 
>> >> rise
>> >> why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with this 
>> >> is
>> >> the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.
>> >> No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave
>> >> and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
>> >> To: NT System A

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Andrew S. Baker]

And yet you haven't left yet -- despite admitting that there are a myriad of
things that are not the way you would like them to be (security-wise or
operationally)

Like I said before:  choose your battles wisely.  While I harp on the need
for strong security practices, I also recognize that there are plenty of
risks that organizations willingly make because they feel that the cost of
mitigating it is too high/limiting.



* *

*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Kurt Buff  wrote:

> Actually, in a sense it *is* my network. I'm given the responsibility,
> and although not nearly enough authority, I do what I can.
>
> If they want to change the policy, I'll either:
>
> o- get the resources needed to deploy the new policy to keep the risk
> to manageable levels
>
> or
>
> o- go somewhere where the stupidity isn't quite so thick.
>
> Kurt
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 19:48, Gary Slinger 
> wrote:
> > Until the CEO says 'make this work'.  It's not /your/ network.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Kurt Buff 
> > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:37:15
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" <
> ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
> >
> > I don't let non-corporate machines on my network without enforcing
> > that they have a current version of a recognized brand of AV and that
> > it's been updated within the past 5 days - I enforce that with the
> > configuration of the of the SSL VPN appliance, which can query for
> > that.
> >
> > It's almost certainly not foolproof, but it's the best that I can do,
> > and if I had my way, I'd not let them on at all, except through an RDP
> > session.
> >
> > Kurt
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:33,   wrote:
> >> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via
> various
> >> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business
> apps
> >> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
> >> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then
> I'd
> >> say no. YMMV, etc.
> >>
> >> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
> >> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They
> shouldn't
> >> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet.
> But
> >> that's all just my very humble opinion.
> >>
> >> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at
> any
> >> moment
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: James Hill 
> >> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
> >> To: NT System Admin Issues
> >> ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" <
> ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>
> >> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
> >>
> >> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> >> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed
> for
> >> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as
> fault
> >> finding.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we
> will
> >> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.
> This
> >> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients
> device.
> >> We will just maintain the server environment.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have
> to
> >> support these devices of which we have very little control over.
> Central
> >> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might
> be
> >> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> >> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to
> then
> >> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> >> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> >> help retain staff?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the
> rise
> >> why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with this
> is
> >> the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this
> much.
> >> No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your
> microwave
> >> and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
> >> To: NT System Admin Issues
> >> Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> >> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the
> Receiver,
> >> which can deliver your corporate apps just about an

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Kurt Buff]

Actually, in a sense it *is* my network. I'm given the responsibility,
and although not nearly enough authority, I do what I can.

If they want to change the policy, I'll either:

o- get the resources needed to deploy the new policy to keep the risk
to manageable levels

or

o- go somewhere where the stupidity isn't quite so thick.

Kurt

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 19:48, Gary Slinger  wrote:
> Until the CEO says 'make this work'.  It's not /your/ network.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kurt Buff 
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:37:15
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
> Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> I don't let non-corporate machines on my network without enforcing
> that they have a current version of a recognized brand of AV and that
> it's been updated within the past 5 days - I enforce that with the
> configuration of the of the SSL VPN appliance, which can query for
> that.
>
> It's almost certainly not foolproof, but it's the best that I can do,
> and if I had my way, I'd not let them on at all, except through an RDP
> session.
>
> Kurt
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:33,   wrote:
>> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various
>> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps
>> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
>> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
>> say no. YMMV, etc.
>>
>> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
>> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
>> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
>> that's all just my very humble opinion.
>>
>> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
>> moment
>>
>> 
>> From: James Hill 
>> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
>> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>>
>> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
>> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
>> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
>> finding.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
>> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
>> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients device.
>> We will just maintain the server environment.
>>
>>
>>
>> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
>> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
>> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
>> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
>> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>>
>>
>>
>> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
>> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
>> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>>
>>
>>
>> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
>> help retain staff?
>>
>>
>>
>> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise
>> why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with this is
>> the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.
>> No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave
>> and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>>
>>
>>
>> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>>
>>
>>
>> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
>> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
>> which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
>> AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
>> to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
>> kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
>> deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
>> need to install one piece of software such as the Receiver is quite novel.
>>
>> It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have
>> their apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop -
>> I assume a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web
>> Interface or the like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for
>> familiarity. But there are a huge amount of different configurations that
>> can be delivered in this way.
>>
>> There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into
>> all of

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Kurt Buff  wrote:
> If it's their machine, it's their responsibility. Have them fix it.

  I used to work for an IT services contractor (i.e., technology
whorehouse).  From the instant we set foot on someone's property,
every single thing that ever went wrong was our fault.  Their toilet
could back up and they'd blame us.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Gary Slinger]

Until the CEO says 'make this work'.  It's not /your/ network. 

-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff 
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:37:15 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

I don't let non-corporate machines on my network without enforcing
that they have a current version of a recognized brand of AV and that
it's been updated within the past 5 days - I enforce that with the
configuration of the of the SSL VPN appliance, which can query for
that.

It's almost certainly not foolproof, but it's the best that I can do,
and if I had my way, I'd not let them on at all, except through an RDP
session.

Kurt

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:33,   wrote:
> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various
> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps
> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
> say no. YMMV, etc.
>
> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
> that's all just my very humble opinion.
>
> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> moment
>
> 
> From: James Hill 
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
> finding.
>
>
>
> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients device.
> We will just maintain the server environment.
>
>
>
> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>
>
>
> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>
>
>
> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> help retain staff?
>
>
>
> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise
> why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with this is
> the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.
> No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave
> and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>
>
>
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
>
>
> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
> which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
> AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
> to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
> kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
> deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
> need to install one piece of software such as the Receiver is quite novel.
>
> It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have
> their apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop -
> I assume a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web
> Interface or the like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for
> familiarity. But there are a huge amount of different configurations that
> can be delivered in this way.
>
> There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into
> all of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one
> place.
>
> Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit - it
> certainly looks interesting.
>
> On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill  wrote:
>
> Let's come back in a year or two and see what they think of their decision
> then.
>
> I can't get my head around making a change like this only to run Windows(via
> Citrix or whatever) on it anyway.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstati

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Andrew S. Baker]

Sounds great, but even some of the best run orgs have exceptions here.  It's
life.

You strive for perfection, and deal with reality.  If you are able to
control it, more power to you (and them, usually).

* *

*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Kurt Buff  wrote:

> If it's their machine, it's their responsibility. Have them fix it.
>
> If it's a corporate machine, they can fedex it back, or Dell or Lenovo
> can go on site to fix a hardware problem. If it's an infection, I've
> spent hours with the remote assistance tool that our SSL provides.
>
> Kurt
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 17:28,   wrote:
> > If you have a user at home who uses VPN to access your systems remotely,
> and
> > they can't get it to work because their system is broken, or infected, do
> > you have to resolve that for them?
> >
> > Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> > moment
> >
> > 
> > From: James Hill 
> > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:12:56 +
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues"  >
> > Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
> >
> > The key there is “We aren’t managing those systems”.  That’s my concern,
> it
> > wouldn’t happen here, we would have to manage them.
> >
> >
> >
> > When something corporate doesn’t work because of the users device who has
> to
> > investigate it?  You or the user?  Who determines where the issue lies?
> >
> >
> >
> > From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 9:34 AM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
> >
> >
> >
> > A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via
> various
> > methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business
> apps
> > and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
> > inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
> > say no. YMMV, etc.
> >
> > With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
> > comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
> > really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
> > that's all just my very humble opinion.
> >
> > Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> > moment
> >
> > 
> >
> > From: James Hill 
> >
> > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
> >
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> >
> > ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues"  >
> >
> > Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
> >
> >
> >
> > The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> > standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed
> for
> > consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as
> fault
> > finding.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we
> will
> > just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.
> This
> > sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients
> device.
> > We will just maintain the server environment.
> >
> >
> >
> > In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have
> to
> > support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
> > administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might
> be
> > able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> > device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
> >
> >
> >
> > Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to
> then
> > deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> > hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
> >
> >
> >
> > A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> > help retain staff?
> >
> >
> >
> > In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the
> rise
> > why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with this
> is
> > the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.
> > No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave
> > and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
> >
> >
> >
> > It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> > necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
> > which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
> > AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate
> application
> > to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging
> some
> > kind of virtual deskt

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Kurt Buff]

If it's their machine, it's their responsibility. Have them fix it.

If it's a corporate machine, they can fedex it back, or Dell or Lenovo
can go on site to fix a hardware problem. If it's an infection, I've
spent hours with the remote assistance tool that our SSL provides.

Kurt

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 17:28,   wrote:
> If you have a user at home who uses VPN to access your systems remotely, and
> they can't get it to work because their system is broken, or infected, do
> you have to resolve that for them?
>
> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> moment
>
> 
> From: James Hill 
> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:12:56 +
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> The key there is “We aren’t managing those systems”.  That’s my concern, it
> wouldn’t happen here, we would have to manage them.
>
>
>
> When something corporate doesn’t work because of the users device who has to
> investigate it?  You or the user?  Who determines where the issue lies?
>
>
>
> From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 9:34 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
>
>
> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various
> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps
> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
> say no. YMMV, etc.
>
> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
> that's all just my very humble opinion.
>
> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> moment
>
> 
>
> From: James Hill 
>
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
>
> To: NT System Admin Issues
>
> ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
>
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
>
>
> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
> finding.
>
>
>
> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients device.
> We will just maintain the server environment.
>
>
>
> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>
>
>
> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>
>
>
> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> help retain staff?
>
>
>
> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise
> why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with this is
> the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.
> No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave
> and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>
>
>
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
>
>
> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
> which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
> AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
> to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
> kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
> deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
> need to install one piece of software such as the Receiver is quite novel.
>
> It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have
> their apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop -
> I assume a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web
> Interface or the like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for
> familiarity. But there are a huge amount of different configurations that
> can be delivered in this way.
>
> There's also the whole s

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Kurt Buff]

I don't let non-corporate machines on my network without enforcing
that they have a current version of a recognized brand of AV and that
it's been updated within the past 5 days - I enforce that with the
configuration of the of the SSL VPN appliance, which can query for
that.

It's almost certainly not foolproof, but it's the best that I can do,
and if I had my way, I'd not let them on at all, except through an RDP
session.

Kurt

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:33,   wrote:
> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various
> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps
> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
> say no. YMMV, etc.
>
> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
> that's all just my very humble opinion.
>
> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> moment
>
> 
> From: James Hill 
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
> finding.
>
>
>
> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients device.
> We will just maintain the server environment.
>
>
>
> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>
>
>
> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>
>
>
> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> help retain staff?
>
>
>
> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise
> why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with this is
> the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.
> No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave
> and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>
>
>
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
>
>
> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
> which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
> AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
> to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
> kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
> deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
> need to install one piece of software such as the Receiver is quite novel.
>
> It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have
> their apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop -
> I assume a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web
> Interface or the like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for
> familiarity. But there are a huge amount of different configurations that
> can be delivered in this way.
>
> There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into
> all of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one
> place.
>
> Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit - it
> certainly looks interesting.
>
> On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill  wrote:
>
> Let's come back in a year or two and see what they think of their decision
> then.
>
> I can't get my head around making a change like this only to run Windows(via
> Citrix or whatever) on it anyway.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:53 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not
> the commercials, legals, occupational heal

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>> What’s the costs in the long run though?  Unmanaged devices
>> may have more down time which may result in unproductive workers.
>
> While I don't necessarily disagree with your points, that
> ship has already sailed.

  So has the Titanic.  ;-)

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Andrew S. Baker]

I've had various roles where we provided hosting services to businesses, and
their problems are our problems -- even after we prove that they're not.
 (Translation: we still have to help them overcome the issue, but at least
we're not being blamed for the problem).

So, having this happen to a lesser degree within the network is no great
difficulty...

(Best to get ahead of the curve and pick a few key things that you do intend
to support, and lobby for training to do so effectively, rather than end up
supporting everything under the sun.)

* *

*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:12 PM, James Hill wrote:

>  The key there is “We aren’t managing those systems”.  That’s my concern,
> it wouldn’t happen here, we would have to manage them.
>
> ** **
>
> When something corporate doesn’t work because of the users device who has
> to investigate it?  You or the user?  Who determines where the issue lies?
> 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 19 October 2011 9:34 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
>  ** **
>
> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various
> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps
> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
> say no. YMMV, etc.
>
> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
> that's all just my very humble opinion.
>
> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> moment
>  --
>
> *From: *James Hill  
>
> *Date: *Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
>
> *To: *NT System Admin Issues
>
> *ReplyTo: *"NT System Admin Issues"  >
>
> *Subject: *RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> ** **
>
> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
> finding.
>
> ** **
>
> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients device.
> We will just maintain the server environment.
>
> ** **
>
> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>
> ** **
>
> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>
> ** **
>
> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> help retain staff?
>
> ** **
>
> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the
> rise why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with
> this is the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this
> much.  No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your
> microwave and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> ** **
>
> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
> which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
> AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
> to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
> kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
> deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
> need to install one piece of software such as the Receiver is quite novel.
>
> It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have
> their apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop -
> I assume a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web
> Interface or the like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for
> familiarity. But there are a huge amount of different configurat

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Andrew S. Baker]

While I don't necessarily disagree with your points, that ship has already
sailed.

The business world is more about what they *can* do, than what they
shouldn't do -- even in industries that you would otherwise equate with high
risk.

Our job is to mitigate risk, improve productivity (of others, primarily),
and just roll with the punches in general.

Over time, if it truly becomes an issue, then more vendors will rise up to
address it, and it will become less of an issue.

There was a time when those in charge of technology argued that adding all
those unmanageable PCs would cause the very end of life as we know it.  In
some ways, they were right -- just not the ways they anticipated.  We have
survived and thrived despite (or because of) the proliferation of desktop
systems, and this trend is likely to continue.

If having personal PCs on your network violates your personal principles,
then by all means, fight against it.  If not, well... choose your battles
wisely and strategically, and don't use up all your political capital in one
place.

And made sure you know how to lobby for the right tools to mitigate the
likely risks.  Just make sure you're finding ways to add value to the
organization, rather than simply opposing everything with even a modicum of
risk attached to it.


* *

*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:37 PM, James Hill wrote:

>  What’s the costs in the long run though?  Unmanaged devices may have more
> down time which may result in unproductive workers.
>
> ** **
>
> It’s new territory and I think it’s wrong of us (the IT Pro community) to
> not strongly raise the many issues with moving down this path.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 19 October 2011 8:20 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> ** **
>
> It's not just about employee rights/freedom -- it's about managing costs.
> (They pay the same for the tech team whether we struggle with integration or
> not).
>
> It costs less for organizations to avoid long-term contracts for mobile
> devices and computing devices if they can.
>
> It's not always the BEST decision, but best is subjective in many cases,
> and that's nothing new anyway.
> 
>
> *ASB*
>
> *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, James Hill 
> wrote:
>
> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
> finding.
>
>  
>
> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients device.
> We will just maintain the server environment.
>
>  
>
> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>
>  
>
> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>
>  
>
> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> help retain staff?
>
>  
>
> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the
> rise why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with
> this is the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this
> much.  No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your
> microwave and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>
>  
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
>  
>
> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
> which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
> AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
> to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
> kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
> deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
> need to install one piece of software such as the Rece

Re: Flexera to acquire Wise...

[Clayton Doige]

Eventually they will also acquire Flexera, and packaging tools will
ultimately come way down in price. It's a sad loss of a good product, but
times have moved on. It's now about delivery (virtual apps, virtual
desktop), who uses what app and when and why. Tool sets that account for
more than just packaging apps, and app conflict management are available and
gaining prominence as business needs to understand why they have the apps
that they do, and if there is a reason to keep them. Over and above that,
give it a couple of years and MSI installers will be a rarity, with the
majority either being delivered as a streamed app or via web.

On 17 October 2011 16:31, Rod Trent  wrote:

> Did you guys hear about this yet?
>
>
>
>
> http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/2011/10/17/flexera-installshield-acquiring-wiseone-product-to-rule-them-all/
>
>
>
> I know there was some discussion recently about Wise, but looks like
> end-of-life is November 7th…
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



-- 
Regards,

Clayton
clay...@alsipius.com
http://alsipius.com

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[James Hill]

It depends, generally they are using company equipment so yes.  If not we will 
provide limited support.

These are the minority though.

It's manageable in small environments but if you had thousands of users in 
different geographical locations it's a whole different scenario.

From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 10:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

If you have a user at home who uses VPN to access your systems remotely, and 
they can't get it to work because their system is broken, or infected, do you 
have to resolve that for them?

Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any moment


From: James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:12:56 +
To: NT System Admin 
Issuesmailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

The key there is "We aren't managing those systems".  That's my concern, it 
wouldn't happen here, we would have to manage them.

When something corporate doesn't work because of the users device who has to 
investigate it?  You or the user?  Who determines where the issue lies?

From: kz2...@googlemail.com 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 9:34 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various 
methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps 
and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them inside 
the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd say no. 
YMMV, etc.

With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff comes 
in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't really do 
much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But that's all just 
my very humble opinion.

Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any moment


From: James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
To: NT System Admin 
Issuesmailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE's and 
standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for 
consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault 
finding.

Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will 
just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This 
sounds great but it assumes that we won't be supporting the clients device.  We 
will just maintain the server environment.

In reality, regardless of policy, this just won't happen.  We will have to 
support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central 
administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be 
able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their device 
but that wouldn't fly for any organisation I've worked for.

Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then 
deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive hardware 
when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?

A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac's will attract and help 
retain staff?

In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise 
why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What's wrong with this is the 
job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.  No you 
can't bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave and yes you 
need to wear closed in shoes!

From: James Rankin 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not 
necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver, which 
can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's AppBlast is 
another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application to a browser 
over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some kind of virtual 
desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to deliver these apps to 
vast amounts of different devices without even the need to install one piece of 
software such as the Receiver is quite novel.

It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have their 
apps for work. It's not all about delive

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[kz20fl]

If you have a user at home who uses VPN to access your systems remotely, and 
they can't get it to work because their system is broken, or infected, do you 
have to resolve that for them?


Sent from my POS BlackBerry  wireless device, which may wipe itself at any 
moment

-Original Message-
From: James Hill 
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:12:56 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

The key there is "We aren't managing those systems".  That's my concern, it 
wouldn't happen here, we would have to manage them.

When something corporate doesn't work because of the users device who has to 
investigate it?  You or the user?  Who determines where the issue lies?

From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 9:34 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various 
methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps 
and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them inside 
the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd say no. 
YMMV, etc.

With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff comes 
in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't really do 
much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But that's all just 
my very humble opinion.

Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any moment


From: James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
To: NT System Admin 
Issuesmailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE's and 
standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for 
consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault 
finding.

Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will 
just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This 
sounds great but it assumes that we won't be supporting the clients device.  We 
will just maintain the server environment.

In reality, regardless of policy, this just won't happen.  We will have to 
support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central 
administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be 
able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their device 
but that wouldn't fly for any organisation I've worked for.

Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then 
deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive hardware 
when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?

A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac's will attract and help 
retain staff?

In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise 
why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What's wrong with this is the 
job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.  No you 
can't bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave and yes you 
need to wear closed in shoes!

From: James Rankin 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not 
necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver, which 
can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's AppBlast is 
another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application to a browser 
over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some kind of virtual 
desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to deliver these apps to 
vast amounts of different devices without even the need to install one piece of 
software such as the Receiver is quite novel.

It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have their 
apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop - I assume 
a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web Interface or the 
like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for familiarity. But 
there are a huge amount of different configurations that can be delivered in 
this way.

There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into all 
of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one place.

Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit - it 
certainly looks interesting.
On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>> wrote:
Let's come back in a 

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Jon Harris]

I my experience unless you can prove it was the users machine at fault most
of them will always say it is on the corporate side.  How many users want to
admit they are not doing what they say they are doing.  Then it becomes more
of an issue getting things fixed or the users expect the company to foot the
bill for finding and fixing the problem.  At least if the hardware is owned
by the company they can (at least in the US) go into the hardware and look
for the problem if the hardware is user owned then it becomes more of a
problem.

Jon

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:12 PM, James Hill wrote:

>  The key there is “We aren’t managing those systems”.  That’s my concern,
> it wouldn’t happen here, we would have to manage them.
>
> ** **
>
> When something corporate doesn’t work because of the users device who has
> to investigate it?  You or the user?  Who determines where the issue lies?
> 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 19 October 2011 9:34 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
>  ** **
>
> A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various
> methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps
> and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them
> inside the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd
> say no. YMMV, etc.
>
> With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff
> comes in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't
> really do much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But
> that's all just my very humble opinion.
>
> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> moment
>  --
>
> *From: *James Hill  
>
> *Date: *Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
>
> *To: *NT System Admin Issues
>
> *ReplyTo: *"NT System Admin Issues"  >
>
> *Subject: *RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> ** **
>
> The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
> finding.
>
> ** **
>
> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients device.
> We will just maintain the server environment.
>
> ** **
>
> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>
> ** **
>
> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>
> ** **
>
> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> help retain staff?
>
> ** **
>
> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the
> rise why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with
> this is the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this
> much.  No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your
> microwave and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> ** **
>
> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
> which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
> AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
> to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
> kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
> deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
> need to install one piece of software such as the Receiver is quite novel.
>
> It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have
> their apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop -
> I assume a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web
> Interface or the like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for
> familiarity. But there are a huge amount of different configurations that
> can be delivered in this way.
>
> There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able t

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[James Hill]

The key there is "We aren't managing those systems".  That's my concern, it 
wouldn't happen here, we would have to manage them.

When something corporate doesn't work because of the users device who has to 
investigate it?  You or the user?  Who determines where the issue lies?

From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 9:34 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various 
methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps 
and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them inside 
the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd say no. 
YMMV, etc.

With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff comes 
in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't really do 
much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But that's all just 
my very humble opinion.

Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any moment


From: James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 +
To: NT System Admin 
Issuesmailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE's and 
standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for 
consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault 
finding.

Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will 
just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This 
sounds great but it assumes that we won't be supporting the clients device.  We 
will just maintain the server environment.

In reality, regardless of policy, this just won't happen.  We will have to 
support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central 
administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be 
able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their device 
but that wouldn't fly for any organisation I've worked for.

Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then 
deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive hardware 
when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?

A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac's will attract and help 
retain staff?

In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise 
why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What's wrong with this is the 
job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.  No you 
can't bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave and yes you 
need to wear closed in shoes!

From: James Rankin 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not 
necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver, which 
can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's AppBlast is 
another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application to a browser 
over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some kind of virtual 
desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to deliver these apps to 
vast amounts of different devices without even the need to install one piece of 
software such as the Receiver is quite novel.

It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have their 
apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop - I assume 
a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web Interface or the 
like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for familiarity. But 
there are a huge amount of different configurations that can be delivered in 
this way.

There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into all 
of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one place.

Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit - it 
certainly looks interesting.
On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>> wrote:
Let's come back in a year or two and see what they think of their decision then.

I can't get my head around making a change like this only to run Windows(via 
Citrix or whatever) on it anyway.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical poin

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[kz20fl]

A lot of us already let home PCs connect to our corporate LANs via various 
methods. We aren't managing those systems yet they are running business apps 
and accessing business data. Is there much difference to allowing them inside 
the perimeter? If your network is sufficiently insulated, then I'd say no. 
YMMV, etc.

With regards to standards, that's where the VDI and Citrix or RDS stuff comes 
in. These BYO devices become glorified thin clients. They shouldn't really do 
much off the host device. Least of all browse the internet. But that's all just 
my very humble opinion.

Sent from my POS BlackBerry  wireless device, which may wipe itself at any 
moment

-Original Message-
From: James Hill 
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:01 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE's and 
standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for 
consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault 
finding.

Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will 
just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This 
sounds great but it assumes that we won't be supporting the clients device.  We 
will just maintain the server environment.

In reality, regardless of policy, this just won't happen.  We will have to 
support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central 
administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be 
able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their device 
but that wouldn't fly for any organisation I've worked for.

Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then 
deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive hardware 
when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?

A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac's will attract and help 
retain staff?

In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise 
why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What's wrong with this is the 
job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.  No you 
can't bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave and yes you 
need to wear closed in shoes!

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not 
necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver, which 
can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's AppBlast is 
another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application to a browser 
over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some kind of virtual 
desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to deliver these apps to 
vast amounts of different devices without even the need to install one piece of 
software such as the Receiver is quite novel.

It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have their 
apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop - I assume 
a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web Interface or the 
like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for familiarity. But 
there are a huge amount of different configurations that can be delivered in 
this way.

There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into all 
of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one place.

Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit - it 
certainly looks interesting.

On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>> wrote:
Let's come back in a year or two and see what they think of their decision then.

I can't get my head around making a change like this only to run Windows(via 
Citrix or whatever) on it anyway.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not the 
commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.

FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986

Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due diligence.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies 
[mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 11:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Not true - you take on liabili

Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Stefan Jafs]

Anyhow I picked up a small energy meter for less than $30 so tomorrow the
can plug in the Alarms and get the true reading, where marketing will take
after that is any ones guess.

Stefan

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Stefan Jafs 
> wrote:
> > No I'm trying to figure out how much more energy efficient our new 7" LCD
> > display alarm is to our "old" LED version, and based upon an PF of .6,
> the
> > difference is $25 / year.
>
>   Too bad you've now spent a few $1000 in time figuring it out.  :-)
>
> > Marketing is trying to capitalize on the Energy efficiency.
>
>   So just tell them to make up a number.  It's what they'll do anyway.  :-)
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



-- 
Stefan Jafs

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Kurt Buff]

By being vigilant and having the defense in depth that you should, you
are covered, and you should then start to worry more about the 0day
than the rest of it. If you're in a situation where you can do that,
then you're also likely in an environment that *needs* to worry about
0-days, such as banking, defense, or other high-value or
highly-regulated industries.

If you don't have the ability to have the defense in depth, because
you're told you can't, well, time for the blood pressure meds, because
you not only have 0days, you have all the rest of the crap that does
with it.

Kurt

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:23, Michael B. Smith  wrote:
> I don't get it. Sorry, I don't.
>
> If (as the article says) only one-tenth of one percent of issues are caused 
> by zero-days; then that's not even a blip on the radar.
>
> That doesn't mean "don't be vigilant" and "don't have good processes and 
> procedures", at least not to me. It means that pursuing a well-rounded 
> defense in depth strategy is the proper course - as always.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael B. Smith
> Consultant and Exchange MVP
> http://TheEssentialExchange.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:19 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
> From the article:
>
> "We're not saying don't worry about zero-days. But they need to be put
> into context," said Jeff Jones, a director of security with
> Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing group. "For the person who has
> security as a day-to-day job, they need to worry about the things that
> are most prevalent and most severe."
>
> Hmmm
>
> What is a zero-day except the most severe thing - caught, and not
> merely with your knickers down, but effectively no knickers at all.
>
> Yes, patch - first, last and always - but the proliferation of
> software diversity makes that very hard.
>
> Don't Panic? Well, that's only useful advice if you take it to mean
> that you shouldn't start a full-bore linear run into whatever obstacle
> is in your way. On the other hand, if your blood pressure isn't rising
> to dangerous levels because of the situation, you probably don't know
> what the hell is going on, or else your IT policy is hated by your end
> users because they can't install their favorite malware magnets.
>
> Kurt
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 08:18, David Lum  wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
>>
>> David Lum
>> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
>> Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here: 
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[James Hill]

What's the costs in the long run though?  Unmanaged devices may have more down 
time which may result in unproductive workers.

It's new territory and I think it's wrong of us (the IT Pro community) to not 
strongly raise the many issues with moving down this path.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 8:20 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's not just about employee rights/freedom -- it's about managing costs.   
(They pay the same for the tech team whether we struggle with integration or 
not).

It costs less for organizations to avoid long-term contracts for mobile devices 
and computing devices if they can.

It's not always the BEST decision, but best is subjective in many cases, and 
that's nothing new anyway.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>> wrote:
The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE's and 
standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for 
consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault 
finding.

Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will 
just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This 
sounds great but it assumes that we won't be supporting the clients device.  We 
will just maintain the server environment.

In reality, regardless of policy, this just won't happen.  We will have to 
support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central 
administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be 
able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their device 
but that wouldn't fly for any organisation I've worked for.

Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then 
deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive hardware 
when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?

A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac's will attract and help 
retain staff?

In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise 
why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What's wrong with this is the 
job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.  No you 
can't bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave and yes you 
need to wear closed in shoes!

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not 
necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver, which 
can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's AppBlast is 
another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application to a browser 
over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some kind of virtual 
desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to deliver these apps to 
vast amounts of different devices without even the need to install one piece of 
software such as the Receiver is quite novel.

It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have their 
apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop - I assume 
a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web Interface or the 
like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for familiarity. But 
there are a huge amount of different configurations that can be delivered in 
this way.

There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into all 
of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one place.

Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit - it 
certainly looks interesting.
On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>> wrote:
Let's come back in a year or two and see what they think of their decision then.

I can't get my head around making a change like this only to run Windows(via 
Citrix or whatever) on it anyway.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not the 
commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.

FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986

Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due diligence.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies 
[mailto:adav...@cls-serv

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[Andrew S. Baker]

It's not just about employee rights/freedom -- it's about managing costs.
(They pay the same for the tech team whether we struggle with integration or
not).

It costs less for organizations to avoid long-term contracts for mobile
devices and computing devices if they can.

It's not always the BEST decision, but best is subjective in many cases, and
that's nothing new anyway.

* *

*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, James Hill wrote:

>  The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE’s and
> standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for
> consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault
> finding.
>
> ** **
>
> Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will
> just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This
> sounds great but it assumes that we won’t be supporting the clients device.
> We will just maintain the server environment.
>
> ** **
>
> In reality, regardless of policy, this just won’t happen.  We will have to
> support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central
> administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be
> able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their
> device but that wouldn’t fly for any organisation I’ve worked for.
>
> ** **
>
> Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then
> deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive
> hardware when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?
>
> ** **
>
> A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac’s will attract and
> help retain staff?
>
> ** **
>
> In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the
> rise why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What’s wrong with
> this is the job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this
> much.  No you can’t bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your
> microwave and yes you need to wear closed in shoes!
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> ** **
>
> It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
> necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
> which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
> AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
> to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
> kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
> deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
> need to install one piece of software such as the Receiver is quite novel.
>
> It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have
> their apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop -
> I assume a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web
> Interface or the like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for
> familiarity. But there are a huge amount of different configurations that
> can be delivered in this way.
>
> There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into
> all of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one
> place.
>
> Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit -
> it certainly looks interesting.
>
> 
>
> On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill  wrote:
> 
>
> Let's come back in a year or two and see what they think of their decision
> then.
>
> I can't get my head around making a change like this only to run
> Windows(via Citrix or whatever) on it anyway.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
>
>   Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:53 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not
> the commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.
>
> FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
>
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986
>
> Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due
> diligence.
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
> Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 11:30 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> Not true - you take on liability as an employer.  You may protect the rest
> of your network to some extent with the example below, but it doesn't change
> your liability. 

Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Stefan Jafs  wrote:
> No I'm trying to figure out how much more energy efficient our new 7" LCD
> display alarm is to our "old" LED version, and based upon an PF of .6, the
> difference is $25 / year.

  Too bad you've now spent a few $1000 in time figuring it out.  :-)

> Marketing is trying to capitalize on the Energy efficiency.

  So just tell them to make up a number.  It's what they'll do anyway.  :-)

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Michael B. Smith  wrote:
> I always travel with a towel and wire ties. If I have time to plan, I
> also through in duct tape and WD-40.

  Duct tape and WD-40 are practically all you need to fix any
mechanical problem.

  If it moves and shouldn't: Duct tape.

  It it doesn't move and should: WD-40.

  I should put some duct tape on the server.  Just to give the
computer room the right aesthetic.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Michael B. Smith  wrote:
> If (as the article says) only one-tenth of one percent of issues are caused
> by zero-days; then that's not even a blip on the radar.

  Heck, I'd guess that most exploits happen because users explicitly
downloaded and installed the program that turned out to be malware.

  But if you're an even half-way competent IT guy -- and while we've
had our differences, MBS, I certainly believe you're a hell of a lot
better than *that* -- you've already got the obvious stuff covered.
You patch religiously, you run a firewall or two, you run signature
based detection, you keep your browser settings sane, you don't run as
admin for day-to-day usage, etc, etc.

  That eliminates most of the exploits out there.

  Of the remainder -- the stuff that presents a real challenge --
zero-day exploits are a much bigger threat, proportionately.

  And because of their very nature -- something you don't know about
-- they do indeed leave one vulnerable and powerless WRT the threat
itself.  Sure, you can employ measures to mitigate the damage, and
that helps a lot, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that a
vulnerability you don't know about isn't something you can address
directly.

  I can't speak for others, but that was what drove my reaction: The
apparent dismissal of customer reaction to unpatched bugs, as if it's
somehow unreasonable to expect a quality, secure product.

> It means that pursuing a well-rounded defense in depth strategy
> is the proper course - as always.

  I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

  It's possible to both be concerned about zero-day attacks and pursue
a sane course of action.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[James Hill]

The issue I see is that for years we have moved towards SOE/MOE's and 
standardisation so that less staff could manage more devices.  We aimed for 
consistency which greatly aided in adds, moves and changes as well as fault 
finding.

Now we are saying that any device can be used and that is all ok as we will 
just wall off everything except for the required access to Citrix etc.  This 
sounds great but it assumes that we won't be supporting the clients device.  We 
will just maintain the server environment.

In reality, regardless of policy, this just won't happen.  We will have to 
support these devices of which we have very little control over.  Central 
administration will largely go out the window.  Some organisations might be 
able to say it is the users issue if there is something wrong with their device 
but that wouldn't fly for any organisation I've worked for.

Stranger still is standardising on a different OS (osx for example) to then 
deliver the required apps using Windows.  Why pay for more expensive hardware 
when your licensing costs are the same if not more expensive?

A bank here has done exactly this as they believe Mac's will attract and help 
retain staff?

In a time when many countries are struggling and unemployment is on the rise 
why are we allowing employees to call the shots?  What's wrong with this is the 
job and this is the tools you will use and we will pay you this much.  No you 
can't bring in your personal computer, your fridge, your microwave and yes you 
need to wear closed in shoes!

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 6:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Macs and vunerabilities

It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not 
necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver, which 
can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's AppBlast is 
another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application to a browser 
over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some kind of virtual 
desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to deliver these apps to 
vast amounts of different devices without even the need to install one piece of 
software such as the Receiver is quite novel.

It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have their 
apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop - I assume 
a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web Interface or the 
like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for familiarity. But 
there are a huge amount of different configurations that can be delivered in 
this way.

There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into all 
of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one place.

Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit - it 
certainly looks interesting.

On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill 
mailto:james.h...@coffeeclub.com.au>> wrote:
Let's come back in a year or two and see what they think of their decision then.

I can't get my head around making a change like this only to run Windows(via 
Citrix or whatever) on it anyway.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not the 
commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.

FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986

Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due diligence.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies 
[mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 11:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Not true - you take on liability as an employer.  You may protect the rest of 
your network to some extent with the example below, but it doesn't change your 
liability.  And I'd still want a VPN in front of RDS/Citrix rather than direct 
access - you wouldn't put your Citrix servers direct on the Internet ...



a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: 17 October 2011 16:28
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

You could provide all corporate services via VDI (RDS or Citrix). With other 
isolation techniques, it doesn't really matter what the end users bring in. 
Also have some policies for end-users to follow (e.g.
installing AV - that can be managed centrally without them having to be part of 
a domain).

There's at least one mid-tier bank in Aus doing this very 

Re: OT: WAN Optimization Recommendations

[Harry Singh]

Thanks Andrew.



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> We've been looking at Exinda...  Hoping to do a pilot test in a few weeks,
> perhaps.
>
> * *
>
> *ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
> Technology for the SMB market…
>
> *
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Harry Singh  wrote:
>
>> Subject says it all..I'm looking for recommendation on WAN Optimization
>> appliances that you folks have either used or heard good things about.
>> Kindly exclude Riverbed, Cisco WAAS and Citrix as I'm actively obtaining
>> pricing information on these. Also, if anyone is using the Citrix Branch
>> Repeater Virtual Appliance, shoot me an email. I'm curious to know what
>> "off-the-shelf" hardware you're running to support this Virtual Appliance.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Harry.
>>
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Carl Houseman]

Managing minutiae are we?

 

As a rule "LED" flat screens use less energy than "LCD" flat screens.  Both
use LCD panels; LED refers to the panel's backlight source, where ordinary
LCD displays have fluorescent bulbs.

 

Carl

 

From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:28 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

 

No I'm trying to figure out how much more energy efficient our new 7" LCD
display alarm is to our "old" LED version, and based upon an PF of .6, the
difference is $25 / year.

Marketing is trying to capitalize on the Energy efficiency.

Thanks everybody for the input.

Stefan

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Carl Houseman 
wrote:
> If you're really this concerned over accuracy, get/buy a Kill-A-Watt and
> plug one into it, that will give you the actual W used by the device.
> Nameplate or specification current ratings are generally higher than
actual
> usage.

 For that matter, 290 mA is tiny.  Stefan Jafs, how long you looking
to run this thing for?  You could prolly run it for a week on a car
battery.  ;-)

 (Note that car batteries are actually poor performers for this kind
of thing, but you get the idea.)


-- Ben




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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: OT: WAN Optimization Recommendations

[Andrew S. Baker]

We've been looking at Exinda...  Hoping to do a pilot test in a few weeks,
perhaps.

* *

*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Harry Singh  wrote:

> Subject says it all..I'm looking for recommendation on WAN Optimization
> appliances that you folks have either used or heard good things about.
> Kindly exclude Riverbed, Cisco WAAS and Citrix as I'm actively obtaining
> pricing information on these. Also, if anyone is using the Citrix Branch
> Repeater Virtual Appliance, shoot me an email. I'm curious to know what
> "off-the-shelf" hardware you're running to support this Virtual Appliance.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Harry.
>
>
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Webster]

Exception caught and sent to bit bucket.



Carl Webster

Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional

http://www.CarlWebster.com


From: Michael B. Smith [mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:27 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

*throw

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

I always travel with a towel and wire ties. If I have time to plan, I also 
through in duct tape and WD-40.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com

From: Micheal Espinola Jr 
[mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:23 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

And dont forget a towel.

--
Espi



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Richard Stovall 
mailto:rich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Heck, just the cover.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Jonathan Link 
mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article content 
justice.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…


On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum 
mailto:david@nwea.org>> wrote:
Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
David Lum
Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 
503.267.9764




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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Michael B. Smith]

*throw

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

I always travel with a towel and wire ties. If I have time to plan, I also 
through in duct tape and WD-40.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com

From: Micheal Espinola Jr 
[mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:23 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

And dont forget a towel.

--
Espi



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Richard Stovall 
mailto:rich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Heck, just the cover.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Jonathan Link 
mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article content 
justice.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...


On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum 
mailto:david@nwea.org>> wrote:
Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
David Lum
Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 
503.267.9764




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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Michael B. Smith]

I always travel with a towel and wire ties. If I have time to plan, I also 
through in duct tape and WD-40.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com

From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:23 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

And dont forget a towel.

--
Espi




On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Richard Stovall 
mailto:rich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Heck, just the cover.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Jonathan Link 
mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article content 
justice.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum 
mailto:david@nwea.org>> wrote:
Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
David Lum
Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 
503.267.9764




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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Michael B. Smith]

I don't get it. Sorry, I don't.

If (as the article says) only one-tenth of one percent of issues are caused by 
zero-days; then that's not even a blip on the radar.

That doesn't mean "don't be vigilant" and "don't have good processes and 
procedures", at least not to me. It means that pursuing a well-rounded defense 
in depth strategy is the proper course - as always.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

From the article:

"We're not saying don't worry about zero-days. But they need to be put
into context," said Jeff Jones, a director of security with
Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing group. "For the person who has
security as a day-to-day job, they need to worry about the things that
are most prevalent and most severe."

Hmmm

What is a zero-day except the most severe thing - caught, and not
merely with your knickers down, but effectively no knickers at all.

Yes, patch - first, last and always - but the proliferation of
software diversity makes that very hard.

Don't Panic? Well, that's only useful advice if you take it to mean
that you shouldn't start a full-bore linear run into whatever obstacle
is in your way. On the other hand, if your blood pressure isn't rising
to dangerous levels because of the situation, you probably don't know
what the hell is going on, or else your IT policy is hated by your end
users because they can't install their favorite malware magnets.

Kurt

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 08:18, David Lum  wrote:
> Thoughts?
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
>
> David Lum
> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
> Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

And dont forget a towel.

--
Espi





On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Richard Stovall  wrote:

> Heck, just the cover.
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Jonathan Link 
> wrote:
>
>> So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide
>> to the Galaxy.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker wrote:
>>
>>> I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
>>> content justice.
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker * 
>>> *Harnessing
>>> the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:
>>>
  Thoughts?

 http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
 

 *David Lum*
 Systems Engineer // NWEATM
 Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764

 ** **


   ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>>> ~   ~
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>>
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~   ~
>>
>> ---
>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

It makes me feel naked.  But I'm OK with it.

--
Espi





On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Michael B. Smith
>  wrote:
> > Yeah, well, I think you should read the article before
> > you completely discount what they said. :-P
>
>   Microsoft says people feel powerless and vulnerable when zero-day
> vulnerabilities are discovered.  Microsoft's conclusion is that people
> shouldn't panic.  The logic is faulty; the conclusion does not follow
> from the givens.
>
>  People *are* powerless and vulnerable when zero-day vulnerabilities
> are discovered.  Why should they feel good about that?
>
>  Mindless panic is never a good idea, but customers are unhappy, and
> they have a right to be.
>
>  Lately it's been more Adobe Flash zero day exploits than Microsoft
> zero day exploits (and hey, good job on MSFT for that), but one could
> easily s/Microsoft/Adobe/ in the article, and the givens would still
> be accurate, and the conclusion would still be wrong.
>
>  I'm speculating here, but I suspect if Adobe published this claim,
> you would not be so quick to defend them.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

Meh.  What's the worse that could happen?

   ...

Oh right, its my job to think about whats the worse that could happen!
CRAP...

--
Espi





On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:

> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
> 
>
> *David Lum*
> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Kurt Buff]

>From the article:

"We're not saying don't worry about zero-days. But they need to be put
into context," said Jeff Jones, a director of security with
Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing group. "For the person who has
security as a day-to-day job, they need to worry about the things that
are most prevalent and most severe."

Hmmm

What is a zero-day except the most severe thing - caught, and not
merely with your knickers down, but effectively no knickers at all.

Yes, patch - first, last and always - but the proliferation of
software diversity makes that very hard.

Don't Panic? Well, that's only useful advice if you take it to mean
that you shouldn't start a full-bore linear run into whatever obstacle
is in your way. On the other hand, if your blood pressure isn't rising
to dangerous levels because of the situation, you probably don't know
what the hell is going on, or else your IT policy is hated by your end
users because they can't install their favorite malware magnets.

Kurt

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 08:18, David Lum  wrote:
> Thoughts?
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
>
> David Lum
> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
> Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

OT: WAN Optimization Recommendations

[Harry Singh]

Subject says it all..I'm looking for recommendation on WAN Optimization
appliances that you folks have either used or heard good things about.
Kindly exclude Riverbed, Cisco WAAS and Citrix as I'm actively obtaining
pricing information on these. Also, if anyone is using the Citrix Branch
Repeater Virtual Appliance, shoot me an email. I'm curious to know what
"off-the-shelf" hardware you're running to support this Virtual Appliance.

Cheers,

Harry.

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Rod Trent]

The book starts out with an airplane disaster and a tawdry scene.  At my
age, I blushed.

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:59 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

Ah.  Not having read the book I missed that.  My bad.



 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Rod Trent  wrote:

Sorry, man.  I was trying to add a bit of humor to an already heated
discussion.  Sometimes it helps to take a step back and just reevaluate. 

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:10 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

You didn't read my words did you?

Microsoft is saying evaluate.  Things that don't require user interaction
should absolutly be a priority.  Other things may have mitigations in your
environment in place already or because of the specificty of the
configurations affected may not apply to you.

 

So, have I read his book?  No.  Nor is it really a sole justification to
panic.  The answer is evaluate the advisories relative to your environment.
That seems something most people could agree to but appearently not.



 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Rod Trent  wrote:

If you read Russinovich's "Zero Day" book, you'll want to panic.  Of course,
since he works for Microsoft, maybe they'll want him to revise it.

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:11 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted
phishing attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific
patch.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim 
wrote:

I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day's can
be pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that
might be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

Sounds like it.

To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are not
important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the information
for each one.

Zero day threat - 

1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably do
something about this one sooner.

2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a
specially crafted email package that got through your mail system filters -
well, maybe you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
wrote:

So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy.

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
content justice.



ASB


http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker


Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market.

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:

Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Micro
soft_says?taxonomyId=85

David Lum 

Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764

 

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally,

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Steven Peck]

Ah.  Not having read the book I missed that.  My bad.



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Rod Trent  wrote:

> Sorry, man.  I was trying to add a bit of humor to an already heated
> discussion.  Sometimes it helps to take a step back and just reevaluate. *
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:10 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
> ** **
>
> You didn't read my words did you?
>
> Microsoft is saying evaluate.  Things that don't require user interaction
> should absolutly be a priority.  Other things may have mitigations in your
> environment in place already or because of the specificty of the
> configurations affected may not apply to you.
>
>  
>
> So, have I read his book?  No.  Nor is it really a sole justification to
> panic.  The answer is evaluate the advisories relative to your environment.
> That seems something most people could agree to but appearently not.
>
>
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Rod Trent 
> wrote:
>
> If you read Russinovich’s “Zero Day” book, you’ll want to panic.  Of
> course, since he works for Microsoft, maybe they’ll want him to revise it.
> 
>
>  
>
> *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:11 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
>  
>
> So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted
> phishing attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific
> patch.
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim <
> kennedy...@elyriaschools.org> wrote:
>
> I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day’s can
> be pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that
> might be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
>  
>
> Sounds like it.
>
> To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are
> not important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the
> information for each one.
>
> Zero day threat - 
>
> 1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably
> do something about this one sooner.
>
> 2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a
> specially crafted email package that got through your mail system filters -
> well, maybe you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
> wrote:
>
> So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy.
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
> wrote:
>
> I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
> content justice.
> 
>
> *ASB*
>
> *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:***
> *
>
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
> 
>
> *David Lum* 
>
> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Rod Trent]

Sorry, man.  I was trying to add a bit of humor to an already heated
discussion.  Sometimes it helps to take a step back and just reevaluate. 

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

You didn't read my words did you?

Microsoft is saying evaluate.  Things that don't require user interaction
should absolutly be a priority.  Other things may have mitigations in your
environment in place already or because of the specificty of the
configurations affected may not apply to you.

 

So, have I read his book?  No.  Nor is it really a sole justification to
panic.  The answer is evaluate the advisories relative to your environment.
That seems something most people could agree to but appearently not.



 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Rod Trent  wrote:

If you read Russinovich's "Zero Day" book, you'll want to panic.  Of course,
since he works for Microsoft, maybe they'll want him to revise it.

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:11 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted
phishing attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific
patch.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim 
wrote:

I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day's can
be pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that
might be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

Sounds like it.

To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are not
important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the information
for each one.

Zero day threat - 

1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably do
something about this one sooner.

2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a
specially crafted email package that got through your mail system filters -
well, maybe you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
wrote:

So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy.

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
content justice.



ASB


http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker


Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market.

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:

Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Micro
soft_says?taxonomyId=85

David Lum 

Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764

 

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Steven Peck]

You didn't read my words did you?
Microsoft is saying evaluate.  Things that don't require user interaction
should absolutly be a priority.  Other things may have mitigations in your
environment in place already or because of the specificty of the
configurations affected may not apply to you.

So, have I read his book?  No.  Nor is it really a sole justification to
panic.  The answer is evaluate the advisories relative to your environment.
That seems something most people could agree to but appearently not.



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Rod Trent  wrote:

> If you read Russinovich’s “Zero Day” book, you’ll want to panic.  Of
> course, since he works for Microsoft, maybe they’ll want him to revise it.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:11 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
> ** **
>
> So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted
> phishing attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific
> patch.
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim <
> kennedy...@elyriaschools.org> wrote:
>
> I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day’s can
> be pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that
> might be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
>  
>
> Sounds like it.
>
> To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are
> not important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the
> information for each one.
>
> Zero day threat - 
>
> 1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably
> do something about this one sooner.
>
> 2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a
> specially crafted email package that got through your mail system filters -
> well, maybe you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
> wrote:
>
> So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy.
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
> wrote:
>
> I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
> content justice.
> 
>
> *ASB*
>
> *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:***
> *
>
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
> 
>
> *David Lum* 
>
> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an e

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[David Lum]

+1  good book!

From: Rod Trent [mailto:rodtr...@myitforum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

If you read Russinovich's "Zero Day" book, you'll want to panic.  Of course, 
since he works for Microsoft, maybe they'll want him to revise it.

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:11 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted phishing 
attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific patch.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim 
mailto:kennedy...@elyriaschools.org>> wrote:
I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day's can be 
pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that might 
be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

Sounds like it.
To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are not 
important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the information for 
each one.
Zero day threat -
1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably do 
something about this one sooner.
2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a specially 
crafted email package that got through your mail system filters - well, maybe 
you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article content 
justice.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...


On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum 
mailto:david@nwea.org>> wrote:
Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
David Lum
Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 
503.267.9764




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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Stefan Jafs]

No I'm trying to figure out how much more energy efficient our new 7" LCD
display alarm is to our "old" LED version, and based upon an PF of .6, the
difference is $25 / year.

Marketing is trying to capitalize on the Energy efficiency.

Thanks everybody for the input.
Stefan

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Carl Houseman 
> wrote:
> > If you’re really this concerned over accuracy, get/buy a Kill-A-Watt and
> > plug one into it, that will give you the actual W used by the device.
> > Nameplate or specification current ratings are generally higher than
> actual
> > usage.
>
>   For that matter, 290 mA is tiny.  Stefan Jafs, how long you looking
> to run this thing for?  You could prolly run it for a week on a car
> battery.  ;-)
>
>  (Note that car batteries are actually poor performers for this kind
> of thing, but you get the idea.)
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>


-- 
Stefan Jafs

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Jonathan Link]

No, but the article said not to panic.  First two words.  Strong message.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Kennedy, Jim
wrote:

> I don’t believe I used the word panic or suggested it.
>
> * *
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:11 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
> ** **
>
> So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted
> phishing attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific
> patch.
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim <
> kennedy...@elyriaschools.org> wrote:
>
> I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day’s can
> be pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that
> might be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
>  
>
> Sounds like it.
>
> To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are
> not important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the
> information for each one.
>
> Zero day threat - 
>
> 1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably
> do something about this one sooner.
>
> 2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a
> specially crafted email package that got through your mail system filters -
> well, maybe you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
> wrote:
>
> So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy.
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
> wrote:
>
> I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
> content justice.
> 
>
> *ASB*
>
> *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:***
> *
>
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
> 
>
> *David Lum* 
>
> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Kennedy, Jim]

I don't believe I used the word panic or suggested it.


From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:11 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted phishing 
attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific patch.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim 
mailto:kennedy...@elyriaschools.org>> wrote:
I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day's can be 
pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that might 
be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

Sounds like it.
To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are not 
important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the information for 
each one.
Zero day threat -
1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably do 
something about this one sooner.
2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a specially 
crafted email package that got through your mail system filters - well, maybe 
you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article content 
justice.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...


On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum 
mailto:david@nwea.org>> wrote:
Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
David Lum
Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 
503.267.9764




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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: dns A record disappearing

[jesse-r...@wi.rr.com]

I also just determined that the static A record is being removed each time
the Mac Lion server is getting rebooted.  Not sure why...?

J

Original Message:
-
From: Harry Singh hbo...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:37:52 -0400
To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: Re: dns A record disappearing


I've dealt with a similar issue. Is scavenging configured? If it is, is it
configured for anything other than the default amount of days?

Take a look at this article, which helped me.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/acefekay/archive/2009/09/02/using-adsi-edit-to-resol
ve-conflicting-or-duplicate-ad-integrated-dns-zones.aspx

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM, daemonR00t
wrote:

> Never tried this but what if you do a repadmin /showobjmeta ?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: jesse-r...@wi.rr.com [mailto:jesse-r...@wi.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:24 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: dns A record disappearing
>
>
> Windows 2008 infrastructure and DNS servers.
>
> I have a static record (A record) in one of my forward zones.  The static
> record has been set so the checkbox for "Delete record when it becomes
> stale" is UN-checked (viewed with Advanced DNS settings).  Yet, this
record
> gets deleted every now and then.  The associated PTR record is not getting
> deleted and always remains.   We are having to re-add that record
> periodically.
>
> Any idea why it's being deleted or determine what is deleting it?  The
> record is for one of our Mac Lion servers.
>
> Thanks
> J
>
>
> 
> mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE



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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Rod Trent]

If you read Russinovich's "Zero Day" book, you'll want to panic.  Of course,
since he works for Microsoft, maybe they'll want him to revise it.

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:11 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted
phishing attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific
patch.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim 
wrote:

I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day's can
be pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that
might be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

 

Sounds like it.

To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are not
important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the information
for each one.

Zero day threat - 

1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably do
something about this one sooner.

2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a
specially crafted email package that got through your mail system filters -
well, maybe you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change





On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
wrote:

So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy.

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
content justice.



ASB


http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker


Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market.

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:

Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Micro
soft_says?taxonomyId=85

David Lum 

Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764

 

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: dns A record disappearing

[jesse-r...@wi.rr.com]

Yes, scavenging is enabled and has to be to remove old DNS entries,
otherwise, the Mac clients have troubles witih printing since they do DNS
looksups when trying to print (otherwise we kerberos errors).

Will look at your article and see if maybe DNS auditing can be turned on...
J


Original Message:
-
From: Harry Singh hbo...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:37:52 -0400
To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: Re: dns A record disappearing


I've dealt with a similar issue. Is scavenging configured? If it is, is it
configured for anything other than the default amount of days?

Take a look at this article, which helped me.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/acefekay/archive/2009/09/02/using-adsi-edit-to-resol
ve-conflicting-or-duplicate-ad-integrated-dns-zones.aspx

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM, daemonR00t
wrote:

> Never tried this but what if you do a repadmin /showobjmeta ?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: jesse-r...@wi.rr.com [mailto:jesse-r...@wi.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:24 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: dns A record disappearing
>
>
> Windows 2008 infrastructure and DNS servers.
>
> I have a static record (A record) in one of my forward zones.  The static
> record has been set so the checkbox for "Delete record when it becomes
> stale" is UN-checked (viewed with Advanced DNS settings).  Yet, this
record
> gets deleted every now and then.  The associated PTR record is not getting
> deleted and always remains.   We are having to re-add that record
> periodically.
>
> Any idea why it's being deleted or determine what is deleting it?  The
> record is for one of our Mac Lion servers.
>
> Thanks
> J
>
>
> 
> mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange



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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Steven Peck]

So you are saying panic?  If you are the target of a specially crafted
phishing attack just for you, you have a lot more problems then a specific
patch.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Kennedy, Jim
wrote:

> I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day’s can
> be pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that
> might be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says
>
> ** **
>
> Sounds like it.
>
> To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are
> not important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the
> information for each one.
>
> Zero day threat - 
>
> 1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably
> do something about this one sooner.
>
> 2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a
> specially crafted email package that got through your mail system filters -
> well, maybe you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
> wrote:
>
> So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy.
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
> wrote:
>
> I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
> content justice.
> 
>
> *ASB*
>
> *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:***
> *
>
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
> 
>
> *David Lum* 
>
> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>
>  
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Kennedy, Jim]

I think you have to include how big a target you might be.  Zero day's can be 
pretty effective in a spear phishing attack. So if you are someone that might 
be more of a target zero days become more of an issue.

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

Sounds like it.
To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are not 
important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the information for 
each one.
Zero day threat -
1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably do 
something about this one sooner.
2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a specially 
crafted email package that got through your mail system filters - well, maybe 
you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link 
mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker 
mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article content 
justice.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum 
mailto:david@nwea.org>> wrote:
Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
David Lum
Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 
503.267.9764




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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Steven Peck]

Sounds like it.
To be honest, I believe that MS has a point. They aren't saying they are not
important, they are saying to not panic. You need to asses the information
for each one.
Zero day threat -
1. RDP will hit your system remotely and blow it up - you should probably do
something about this one sooner.
2. Customer must have ie7 (unpatched), word 2003, flash, and open a
specially crafted email package that got through your mail system filters -
well, maybe you don't have to panic and schedule an immediate change




On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Link wrote:

> So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker wrote:
>
>> I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
>> content justice.
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
>> Technology for the SMB market…
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
>>> 
>>>
>>> *David Lum*
>>> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
>>> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>>
>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~   ~
>>
>> ---
>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Richard Stovall]

Heck, just the cover.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Jonathan Link wrote:

> So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker wrote:
>
>> I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
>> content justice.
>>
>> **
>>
>>*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker * 
>> *Harnessing
>> the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:
>>
>>>  Thoughts?
>>>
>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
>>> 
>>>
>>> *David Lum*
>>> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
>>> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>>
>>>   ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~   ~
>>
>> ---
>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Carl Houseman  wrote:
> If you’re really this concerned over accuracy, get/buy a Kill-A-Watt and
> plug one into it, that will give you the actual W used by the device.
> Nameplate or specification current ratings are generally higher than actual
> usage.

  For that matter, 290 mA is tiny.  Stefan Jafs, how long you looking
to run this thing for?  You could prolly run it for a week on a car
battery.  ;-)

  (Note that car batteries are actually poor performers for this kind
of thing, but you get the idea.)

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[RichardMcClary]

+1

The article says that, although zero day exploits get a lot of attention, 
the most successful system exploits are the results of vulnerabilitys for 
which the patches had long been available.



"Andrew S. Baker"  
10/18/2011 11:45 AM
Please respond to
"NT System Admin Issues" 


To
"NT System Admin Issues" 
 Press this button if the "To" is a fax number. Enter in the fax number 
like 123-456-7890.
cc

Subject
Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says






I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article 
content justice.


ASB
http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker
Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market?




On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:
Thoughts?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
David Lum 
Systems Engineer // NWEATM
Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
 

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Jonathan Link]

So, bascially, I could've learned the same thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
> content justice.
>
> * *
>
> *ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
> Technology for the SMB market…
>
> *
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
>> 
>>
>> *David Lum*
>> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
>> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Carl Houseman]

If you're really this concerned over accuracy, get/buy a Kill-A-Watt and
plug one into it, that will give you the actual W used by the device.
Nameplate or specification current ratings are generally higher than actual
usage.

Carl

 

From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:15 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

 

I guess the big unknown is the PF, I assumed 60% (based on Googeling), the
is a power supply, would it not be higher for a transformer load?

 

Stefan

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Stefan Jafs  wrote:
> I'm, trying to figure out how much it cost to run some of our Medical Gas
> Alarm, current draw is 290 mA at 120 Volts, any ideas?
> This are my guess after some searches:
>

> .290 * 120 = 34.8 VA * 60% (PF) = 20.9 Watts I think that's correct ...

 Looks good to me, assuming your figure for the power factor is correct.

>... but how do I get to kWh?

 Run it for an hour.  ;-)

 20.9 watts is 0.0021 kilowatts.  Run it for an hour, and it's 0.0021
killowatt*hours.  Run it for half an hour, and it's 0.0011
killowatt*hours.  Run it for two hours, and it's 0.0042
killowatt*hours.

 Run it for about 476 hours, and it's 1 killowatt-hour.  (1 / 0.0021 =
476.190)

 Water makes a good analogy for electricity:

voltage = pressure (how hard is it pushing?)
amps = pipe diameter (how much can the wire/pipe carry?)
watts = gallons/hour (how much does it use to run?)
killowatt*hours = gallons (total amount of water/power)

 High pressure (voltage) in a small pipe (wire, amps) still yields a
high gallons/hour (watts).

 How long you run the hose (equipment), times the rate of flow
(watts) determines the amount of water (power, killowatt*hours) you
use.

-- Ben


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Andrew S. Baker]

I think that the title of the article does not do that actual article
content justice.

* *

*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:

> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85
> 
>
> *David Lum*
> Systems Engineer // NWEATM
> Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
>
> ** **
>
>
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Stefan Jafs  wrote:
> I guess the big unknown is the PF, I assumed 60% (based on Googeling), the
> is a power supply, would it not be higher for a transformer load?

  To continue the water analogy, power factor is like a big reserve
tank right before the water tap.  It can cause your water demand to be
out-of-sync with the apparent water usage (coming out of the tap).
You run the faucet for a bit, and the tank starts to drain, but the
supply pipe isn't touched.  Then the tank starts to fill, pulling from
the supply pipe.  Then you shut the faucet off, but the tank keeps
filling.

  Or so I'm given to understand; the actual mechanism behind power
factor is magic to me.  I know a purely resistive load -- like a space
heater -- has a power factor of 1.0.  "Inductive loads" are
"reactive", whatever that means.  :)  Apparently AC motors are
"inductive".  Rectifiers -- like in an AC->DC power supply, such as in
a PC -- are also apparently "reactive".  "Power factor correction"
helps turn equipment with a lower power factor into something with a
higher power factor.

  The numbers I usually see pulled out of the air for PC power supply
units are 0.6 PF for a standard PSU, and 0.9 PF for a PFC PSU.  I have
no idea how much things vary in practice.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: dns A record disappearing

[Harry Singh]

I've dealt with a similar issue. Is scavenging configured? If it is, is it
configured for anything other than the default amount of days?

Take a look at this article, which helped me.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/acefekay/archive/2009/09/02/using-adsi-edit-to-resolve-conflicting-or-duplicate-ad-integrated-dns-zones.aspx

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM, daemonR00t wrote:

> Never tried this but what if you do a repadmin /showobjmeta ?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: jesse-r...@wi.rr.com [mailto:jesse-r...@wi.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:24 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: dns A record disappearing
>
>
> Windows 2008 infrastructure and DNS servers.
>
> I have a static record (A record) in one of my forward zones.  The static
> record has been set so the checkbox for "Delete record when it becomes
> stale" is UN-checked (viewed with Advanced DNS settings).  Yet, this record
> gets deleted every now and then.  The associated PTR record is not getting
> deleted and always remains.   We are having to re-add that record
> periodically.
>
> Any idea why it's being deleted or determine what is deleting it?  The
> record is for one of our Mac Lion servers.
>
> Thanks
> J
>
>
> 
> mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Stefan Jafs  wrote:
> I'm, trying to figure out how much it cost to run some of our Medical Gas
> Alarm, current draw is 290 mA at 120 Volts, any ideas?
> This are my guess after some searches:
>
> .290 * 120 = 34.8 VA * 60% (PF) = 20.9 Watts I think that's correct ...

  Looks good to me, assuming your figure for the power factor is correct.

>... but how do I get to kWh?

  Run it for an hour.  ;-)

  20.9 watts is 0.0021 kilowatts.  Run it for an hour, and it's 0.0021
killowatt*hours.  Run it for half an hour, and it's 0.0011
killowatt*hours.  Run it for two hours, and it's 0.0042
killowatt*hours.

  Run it for about 476 hours, and it's 1 killowatt-hour.  (1 / 0.0021 = 476.190)

  Water makes a good analogy for electricity:

voltage = pressure (how hard is it pushing?)
amps = pipe diameter (how much can the wire/pipe carry?)
watts = gallons/hour (how much does it use to run?)
killowatt*hours = gallons (total amount of water/power)

  High pressure (voltage) in a small pipe (wire, amps) still yields a
high gallons/hour (watts).

  How long you run the hose (equipment), times the rate of flow
(watts) determines the amount of water (power, killowatt*hours) you
use.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: WireShark analysis for pay

[Webster]

>From my limited understanding (I have only been here for 2 days):

The vendor plugged a cable into some device that is to be used for DR 
replication in the future
Device was not properly configured at the time the cable was plugged in
SAN had not been implemented yet
So it appears the new cable was trying to replicate all network traffic to an 
unconfigured device that had no storage on the other side
The network was flooded with retries and waits and timeouts etc etc etc ad 
naseum

The phone system went wack and they thought it was a problem with the phone 
system.  They replaced the server a processor and who knows what else.  The 
also replaced the switch the phone system was connected too.

According to the fellow who worked thru the traces (and since verified by a 
couple of others who have responded) the Wyse Xenith thin clients are extremely 
sensitive to all this crap going on in the network.  Once the cable was 
unplugged and firewall changes reversed, there have been ZERO reports of the 
connection reset by peer.

Thanks



Carl Webster

Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional

http://www.CarlWebster.com


From: Harry Singh [hbo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:16 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WireShark analysis for pay

If you're allowed to disclose this information, I'm definitely interested in 
finding out what was the change that caused the problem.



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Webster 
mailto:webs...@carlwebster.com>> wrote:
This issue appears to have been resolved with the help of a friend from another 
mailing list.

The Wyse Xenith device is extremely sensitive to network traffic and noise.  A 
change had been made by the soon-to-be previous IT services provider.  They had 
insisted their change couldn't be affecting anything.  WRONG!  As soon as their 
change was undone, bingo, no more ICA connection reset by peer issues.  ZERO. :)

Needless to say this customer is very happy, their users are happy and the 
other list member has turned me into the hero of the day.  I am now this IT 
departments new bestest friend ever.  Pays to know or have access to really 
smart people.


Thanks


Carl Webster

Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional

http://www.CarlWebster.com


From: Webster [webs...@carlwebster.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:34 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: WireShark analysis for pay

Have a customer with Wyse zero client devices.  They are constantly getting 
"ICA Connection Reset by Peer".  According to Google, this issue seems to occur 
only with Wyse thin clients.  This customer has a Wyse maintenance contract but 
Wyse appears to not be concerned with fixing this issue for this customer on 
their devices.

Customer has followed Wyse's instructions and obtained Wireshark traces on 
three devices having this connection issue.  Since Wyse appears to not care to 
resolve the issue, the customer has asked me to see if I can find someone who 
could analyze the Wireshark traces (for pay) and see if they could possibly 
find what the culprit may be.  The users are having this connection reset issue 
continually and as you can image the users and the IT staff would like this 
resolved promptly.

If you are experienced at reading Wireshark traces and would like to make some 
money while doing so, contact me off list.  
webs...@carlwebster.com

Thanks



Carl Webster

Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional

http://www.CarlWebster.com

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.s

RE: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Carl Houseman]

kWh=kW * h

 

So kWh = W/1000 * H

 

H= hours of operation over a billing cycle.

 

20W left on 24x7 is likely in the neighborhood of $1/month.

Carl

 

From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

 

I'm, trying to figure out how much it cost to run some of our Medical Gas
Alarm, current draw is 290 mA at 120 Volts, any ideas?

This are my guess after some searches:

 

.290 * 120 = 34.8 VA * 60% (PF) = 20.9 Watts I think that's correct but how
do I get to kWh?



-- 
Stefan Jafs


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Michael B. Smith]

Gosh I hope you're wrong.

I believe in aggressive patching. Period.

I've also been aware for a long time that if you patch aggressively, it doesn't 
protect you 100%, but it goes a darned long way

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:22 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Michael B. Smith
 wrote:
> Yeah, well, I think you should read the article before
> you completely discount what they said. :-P

  Microsoft says people feel powerless and vulnerable when zero-day
vulnerabilities are discovered.  Microsoft's conclusion is that people
shouldn't panic.  The logic is faulty; the conclusion does not follow
from the givens.

  People *are* powerless and vulnerable when zero-day vulnerabilities
are discovered.  Why should they feel good about that?

  Mindless panic is never a good idea, but customers are unhappy, and
they have a right to be.

  Lately it's been more Adobe Flash zero day exploits than Microsoft
zero day exploits (and hey, good job on MSFT for that), but one could
easily s/Microsoft/Adobe/ in the article, and the givens would still
be accurate, and the conclusion would still be wrong.

  I'm speculating here, but I suspect if Adobe published this claim,
you would not be so quick to defend them.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Missing disk space

[Kim Longenbaugh]

+1 too

Shadow copies were the silent thief in our environment as well.

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Missing disk space

+1  I had a server out of space until I discovered the shadow copy stuff...

Dave

From: Steve Ens [mailto:stevey...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Missing disk space

Shadow copies?
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Oliver Marshall 
mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com>> wrote:
Hi chaps

I have a server drive that's out of space. It's not the system drive just a 
drive used for file storage.

Treesize Free is showing 245GB in use but it has 303GB available and the other 
55GB'ish has vanished.

I'm running Treesize as Administrator and it's only showing one warning icon 
which is on the System Volume Information which is showing Access Denied. I 
figure my missing space has crept in there to hide.

Can I add the Administrator to the permissions list for that folder safely and 
then remove the files? Is there anywhere else the space may be hiding?

Olly

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Michael B. Smith
 wrote:
> Yeah, well, I think you should read the article before
> you completely discount what they said. :-P

  Microsoft says people feel powerless and vulnerable when zero-day
vulnerabilities are discovered.  Microsoft's conclusion is that people
shouldn't panic.  The logic is faulty; the conclusion does not follow
from the givens.

  People *are* powerless and vulnerable when zero-day vulnerabilities
are discovered.  Why should they feel good about that?

  Mindless panic is never a good idea, but customers are unhappy, and
they have a right to be.

  Lately it's been more Adobe Flash zero day exploits than Microsoft
zero day exploits (and hey, good job on MSFT for that), but one could
easily s/Microsoft/Adobe/ in the article, and the givens would still
be accurate, and the conclusion would still be wrong.

  I'm speculating here, but I suspect if Adobe published this claim,
you would not be so quick to defend them.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: WireShark analysis for pay

[Harry Singh]

If you're allowed to disclose this information, I'm definitely interested in
finding out what was the change that caused the problem.



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Webster  wrote:

>  This issue appears to have been resolved with the help of a friend from
> another mailing list.
>
> The Wyse Xenith device is extremely sensitive to network traffic and
> noise.  A change had been made by the soon-to-be previous IT services
> provider.  They had insisted their change couldn't be affecting anything.
> WRONG!  As soon as their change was undone, bingo, no more ICA connection
> reset by peer issues.  ZERO. :)
>
> Needless to say this customer is very happy, their users are happy and the
> other list member has turned me into the hero of the day.  I am now this IT
> departments new bestest friend ever.  Pays to know or have access to really
> smart people.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>  Carl Webster
>
> Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional
>
> http://www.CarlWebster.com 
>   --
> *From:* Webster [webs...@carlwebster.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 4:34 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* WireShark analysis for pay
>
>   Have a customer with Wyse zero client devices.  They are constantly
> getting "ICA Connection Reset by Peer".  According to Google, this issue
> seems to occur only with Wyse thin clients.  This customer has a Wyse
> maintenance contract but Wyse appears to not be concerned with fixing this
> issue for this customer on their devices.
>
> Customer has followed Wyse's instructions and obtained Wireshark traces on
> three devices having this connection issue.  Since Wyse appears to not care
> to resolve the issue, the customer has asked me to see if I can find someone
> who could analyze the Wireshark traces (for pay) and see if they could
> possibly find what the culprit may be.  The users are having this connection
> reset issue continually and as you can image the users and the IT staff
> would like this resolved promptly.
>
> If you are experienced at reading Wireshark traces and would like to make
> some money while doing so, contact me off list.  webs...@carlwebster.com
>
> Thanks
>
>
>   Carl Webster
>
> Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional
>
> http://www.CarlWebster.com 
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Stefan Jafs]

I guess the big unknown is the PF, I assumed 60% (based on Googeling), the
is a power supply, would it not be higher for a transformer load?

Stefan

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Stefan Jafs 
> wrote:
> > I'm, trying to figure out how much it cost to run some of our Medical Gas
> > Alarm, current draw is 290 mA at 120 Volts, any ideas?
> > This are my guess after some searches:
> >
> > .290 * 120 = 34.8 VA * 60% (PF) = 20.9 Watts I think that's correct ...
>
>  Looks good to me, assuming your figure for the power factor is correct.
>
> >... but how do I get to kWh?
>
>  Run it for an hour.  ;-)
>
>  20.9 watts is 0.0021 kilowatts.  Run it for an hour, and it's 0.0021
> killowatt*hours.  Run it for half an hour, and it's 0.0011
> killowatt*hours.  Run it for two hours, and it's 0.0042
> killowatt*hours.
>
>  Run it for about 476 hours, and it's 1 killowatt-hour.  (1 / 0.0021 =
> 476.190)
>
>  Water makes a good analogy for electricity:
>
> voltage = pressure (how hard is it pushing?)
> amps = pipe diameter (how much can the wire/pipe carry?)
> watts = gallons/hour (how much does it use to run?)
> killowatt*hours = gallons (total amount of water/power)
>
>  High pressure (voltage) in a small pipe (wire, amps) still yields a
> high gallons/hour (watts).
>
>  How long you run the hose (equipment), times the rate of flow
> (watts) determines the amount of water (power, killowatt*hours) you
> use.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



-- 
Stefan Jafs

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:
> Thoughts?
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85

  Service outages overrated, RIM says.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[RichardMcClary]

BlackBerry overrated, RIM customers say.



Ben Scott  
10/18/2011 11:08 AM
Please respond to
"NT System Admin Issues" 


To
"NT System Admin Issues" 
 Press this button if the "To" is a fax number. Enter in the fax number 
like 123-456-7890.
cc

Subject
Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says






On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:
> Thoughts?
> 
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85


  Service outages overrated, RIM says.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

[Michael B. Smith]

Yeah, well, I think you should read the article before you completely discount 
what they said. :-P

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Zero-day bugs overrated, Microsoft says

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Lum  wrote:
> Thoughts?
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220705/Zero_day_bugs_overrated_Microsoft_says?taxonomyId=85

  Service outages overrated, RIM says.

-- Ben

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Cameron]

1 watt = .001 kw so 20.9 watts = .029 kwh

I *think*

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Stefan Jafs  wrote:

> I'm, trying to figure out how much it cost to run some of our Medical Gas
> Alarm, current draw is 290 mA at 120 Volts, any ideas?
> This are my guess after some searches:
>
> .290 * 120 = 34.8 VA * 60% (PF) = 20.9 Watts I think that's correct but how
> do I get to kWh?
>
>
> --
> Stefan Jafs
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[John C Owen]

I'm unsure of the conversion, but leave it to msft to have a tool that works

Google Microsoft Mathematics

From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: ( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

I'm, trying to figure out how much it cost to run some of our Medical Gas 
Alarm, current draw is 290 mA at 120 Volts, any ideas?
This are my guess after some searches:

.290 * 120 = 34.8 VA * 60% (PF) = 20.9 Watts I think that's correct but how do 
I get to kWh?


--
Stefan Jafs

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: dns A record disappearing

[daemonR00t]

Never tried this but what if you do a repadmin /showobjmeta ?

-Original Message-
From: jesse-r...@wi.rr.com [mailto:jesse-r...@wi.rr.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: dns A record disappearing


Windows 2008 infrastructure and DNS servers.

I have a static record (A record) in one of my forward zones.  The static
record has been set so the checkbox for "Delete record when it becomes
stale" is UN-checked (viewed with Advanced DNS settings).  Yet, this record
gets deleted every now and then.  The associated PTR record is not getting
deleted and always remains.   We are having to re-add that record
periodically.

Any idea why it's being deleted or determine what is deleting it?  The
record is for one of our Mac Lion servers.

Thanks
J



mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint



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

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin



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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: WireShark analysis for pay

[Webster]

This issue appears to have been resolved with the help of a friend from another 
mailing list.

The Wyse Xenith device is extremely sensitive to network traffic and noise.  A 
change had been made by the soon-to-be previous IT services provider.  They had 
insisted their change couldn't be affecting anything.  WRONG!  As soon as their 
change was undone, bingo, no more ICA connection reset by peer issues.  ZERO. :)

Needless to say this customer is very happy, their users are happy and the 
other list member has turned me into the hero of the day.  I am now this IT 
departments new bestest friend ever.  Pays to know or have access to really 
smart people.

Thanks


Carl Webster

Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional

http://www.CarlWebster.com


From: Webster [webs...@carlwebster.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: WireShark analysis for pay

Have a customer with Wyse zero client devices.  They are constantly getting 
"ICA Connection Reset by Peer".  According to Google, this issue seems to occur 
only with Wyse thin clients.  This customer has a Wyse maintenance contract but 
Wyse appears to not be concerned with fixing this issue for this customer on 
their devices.

Customer has followed Wyse's instructions and obtained Wireshark traces on 
three devices having this connection issue.  Since Wyse appears to not care to 
resolve the issue, the customer has asked me to see if I can find someone who 
could analyze the Wireshark traces (for pay) and see if they could possibly 
find what the culprit may be.  The users are having this connection reset issue 
continually and as you can image the users and the IT staff would like this 
resolved promptly.

If you are experienced at reading Wireshark traces and would like to make some 
money while doing so, contact me off list.  webs...@carlwebster.com

Thanks



Carl Webster

Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional

http://www.CarlWebster.com

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

( OT ) Convert mA to Watts

[Stefan Jafs]

I'm, trying to figure out how much it cost to run some of our Medical Gas
Alarm, current draw is 290 mA at 120 Volts, any ideas?
This are my guess after some searches:

.290 * 120 = 34.8 VA * 60% (PF) = 20.9 Watts I think that's correct but how
do I get to kWh?


-- 
Stefan Jafs

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

dns A record disappearing

[jesse-r...@wi.rr.com]

Windows 2008 infrastructure and DNS servers.

I have a static record (A record) in one of my forward zones.  The static
record has been set so the checkbox for "Delete record when it becomes
stale" is UN-checked (viewed with Advanced DNS settings).  Yet, this record
gets deleted every now and then.  The associated PTR record is not getting
deleted and always remains.   We are having to re-add that record
periodically.

Any idea why it's being deleted or determine what is deleting it?  The
record is for one of our Mac Lion servers.

Thanks
J



mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint



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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[Ken Schaefer]

I'm sure RSA has plenty of people who look over what *should* happen. 
Delivery/Execution is another issue.

And no one is hack proof. Lawyers who say "this is your liability if you allow 
people to bring in their laptops" are not the same people who ensure that the 
people who write the code for the Playstation Network is unhackable.

-Original Message-
From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 10:46 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

"However, I'm pretty sure that Suncorp's looked over the 
legal/regulatory/liability issues that this type of computing presents." Can 
you say, "Sony" or "RSA" or "DigiNotar"? just because they're big doesn't mean 
they have covered all their bases. Just sayin'.

Interesting - this is the model NWEA is actually unconsciously moving toward. 
Maybe I'm looking at managing the wrong end? However with BYO how do you 
prevent what is effectively DoS if an infected machine or ten plop on your LAN? 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Let's not confuse delivery with due diligence. In a regulated industry, I'm 
sure there are plenty of lawyers and risk managers who can give opinions and 
descriptions about what *should* happen. Delivery is something completely 
separate, and lots of very large organisations struggle to do anything in a 
timely manner.

However, I'm pretty sure that Suncorp's looked over the 
legal/regulatory/liability issues that this type of computing presents. And I 
suspect that the Australian banking regulator is also looking at it.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Fair enough!  However, re the Aus story (sorry, not time to read today), size 
is never a good indicator of performance (ahem!)!!  Honestly .. if I had a 
penny ..

Big corporations (16k is medium) struggle to change or control their 
environment as often as not.  Sony had terrible security.  The biggest banks 
can't detect rogue traders.  Lots of people, big and small, do things very 
poorly.




a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: 18 October 2011 03:53
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not the 
commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.

FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986

Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due diligence.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 11:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Not true - you take on liability as an employer.  You may protect the rest of 
your network to some extent with the example below, but it doesn't change your 
liability.  And I'd still want a VPN in front of RDS/Citrix rather than direct 
access - you wouldn't put your Citrix servers direct on the Internet ...



a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: 17 October 2011 16:28
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

You could provide all corporate services via VDI (RDS or Citrix). With other 
isolation techniques, it doesn't really matter what the end users bring in. 
Also have some policies for end-users to follow (e.g.
installing AV - that can be managed centrally without them having to be part of 
a domain).

There's at least one mid-tier bank in Aus doing this very thing
(Suncorp-Metway)

Cheers
Ken


WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe nts

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[David Lum]

"However, I'm pretty sure that Suncorp's looked over the 
legal/regulatory/liability issues that this type of computing presents." Can 
you say, "Sony" or "RSA" or "DigiNotar"? just because they're big doesn't mean 
they have covered all their bases. Just sayin'.

Interesting - this is the model NWEA is actually unconsciously moving toward. 
Maybe I'm looking at managing the wrong end? However with BYO how do you 
prevent what is effectively DoS if an infected machine or ten plop on your LAN? 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Let's not confuse delivery with due diligence. In a regulated industry, I'm 
sure there are plenty of lawyers and risk managers who can give opinions and 
descriptions about what *should* happen. Delivery is something completely 
separate, and lots of very large organisations struggle to do anything in a 
timely manner.

However, I'm pretty sure that Suncorp's looked over the 
legal/regulatory/liability issues that this type of computing presents. And I 
suspect that the Australian banking regulator is also looking at it.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Fair enough!  However, re the Aus story (sorry, not time to read today), size 
is never a good indicator of performance (ahem!)!!  Honestly .. if I had a 
penny ..

Big corporations (16k is medium) struggle to change or control their 
environment as often as not.  Sony had terrible security.  The biggest banks 
can't detect rogue traders.  Lots of people, big and small, do things very 
poorly.




a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: 18 October 2011 03:53
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not the 
commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.

FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986

Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due diligence.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 11:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Not true - you take on liability as an employer.  You may protect the rest of 
your network to some extent with the example below, but it doesn't change your 
liability.  And I'd still want a VPN in front of RDS/Citrix rather than direct 
access - you wouldn't put your Citrix servers direct on the Internet ...



a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: 17 October 2011 16:28
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

You could provide all corporate services via VDI (RDS or Citrix). With other 
isolation techniques, it doesn't really matter what the end users bring in. 
Also have some policies for end-users to follow (e.g.
installing AV - that can be managed centrally without them having to be part of 
a domain).

There's at least one mid-tier bank in Aus doing this very thing
(Suncorp-Metway)

Cheers
Ken


WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http:/

Re: San recommendations

[Steve Ens]

Isilon...similar technology to Compellent.  Very pricy too, but awesome
tech.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Maglinger, Paul wrote:

>  Depends on your environment, but +1 on NetApp.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Craig Sterley [mailto:cster...@ostusa.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:14 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: San recommendations
>
>  ** **
>
> netapp
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:55 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: San recommendations
>
> ** **
>
> If I was looking right now, in no particular order, I would be looking at:
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Compellent
>
> Nexenta
>
> Sun Unified Storage
>
> HP P4000
>
> Nimble
>
> EQL
>
> ** **
>
> Of course you haven’t mentioned budget or what level of IO you ned to
> sustain, and the above range wildly in price and performance.
>
> ** **
>
> Paul
>
> *From:* Greg Sweers [mailto:gswe...@acts360.com]
> *Sent:* 18 October 2011 02:02
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* San recommendations
>
> ** **
>
> Recommendations..
>
> ** **
>
> Need about 12TB, ability to scale up, ISCSI for SQL/Exchange, Dedupe at the
> block level, Don’t need replication at the moment.
>
> ** **
>
> Got a quote on an EQ box, anyone else throw out recommendations.
>
> ** **
>
> Thx
>
> ** **
>
> *Greg Sweers*
>
> CEO
>
> *ACTS360.com* **
>
> *P.O. Box 1193*
>
> *Brandon, FL  33509*
>
> *813-657-0849 Office*
>
> *813-758-6850 Cell*
>
> *813-341-1270 Fax*
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>  --
>
> *MIRA Ltd*
>
> ** **
>
> Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England
>
> Registered in England and Wales No. 402570
>
> VAT Registration  GB 100 1464 84
>
> ** **
>
> The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of
> the intended recipient.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete
> it and notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax.  You should not copy,
> forward or otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is
> prohibited.
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: San recommendations

[Maglinger, Paul]

Depends on your environment, but +1 on NetApp.

From: Craig Sterley [mailto:cster...@ostusa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:14 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: San recommendations

netapp

From: Paul Hutchings 
[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: San recommendations

If I was looking right now, in no particular order, I would be looking at:

Compellent
Nexenta
Sun Unified Storage
HP P4000
Nimble
EQL

Of course you haven't mentioned budget or what level of IO you ned to sustain, 
and the above range wildly in price and performance.

Paul
From: Greg Sweers 
[mailto:gswe...@acts360.com]
Sent: 18 October 2011 02:02
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: San recommendations

Recommendations..

Need about 12TB, ability to scale up, ISCSI for SQL/Exchange, Dedupe at the 
block level, Don't need replication at the moment.

Got a quote on an EQ box, anyone else throw out recommendations.

Thx

Greg Sweers
CEO
ACTS360.com
P.O. Box 1193
Brandon, FL  33509
813-657-0849 Office
813-758-6850 Cell
813-341-1270 Fax


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


MIRA Ltd

Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England
Registered in England and Wales No. 402570
VAT Registration  GB 100 1464 84

The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the 
intended recipient.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and 
notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax.  You should not copy, forward or 
otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited.

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: San recommendations

[Craig Sterley]

netapp

From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: San recommendations

If I was looking right now, in no particular order, I would be looking at:

Compellent
Nexenta
Sun Unified Storage
HP P4000
Nimble
EQL

Of course you haven't mentioned budget or what level of IO you ned to sustain, 
and the above range wildly in price and performance.

Paul
From: Greg Sweers 
[mailto:gswe...@acts360.com]
Sent: 18 October 2011 02:02
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: San recommendations

Recommendations..

Need about 12TB, ability to scale up, ISCSI for SQL/Exchange, Dedupe at the 
block level, Don't need replication at the moment.

Got a quote on an EQ box, anyone else throw out recommendations.

Thx

Greg Sweers
CEO
ACTS360.com
P.O. Box 1193
Brandon, FL  33509
813-657-0849 Office
813-758-6850 Cell
813-341-1270 Fax


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


MIRA Ltd

Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England
Registered in England and Wales No. 402570
VAT Registration  GB 100 1464 84

The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the 
intended recipient.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and 
notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax.  You should not copy, forward or 
otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited.

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: San recommendations

[Paul Hutchings]

If I was looking right now, in no particular order, I would be looking at:

Compellent
Nexenta
Sun Unified Storage
HP P4000
Nimble
EQL

Of course you haven't mentioned budget or what level of IO you ned to sustain, 
and the above range wildly in price and performance.

Paul

From: Greg Sweers [mailto:gswe...@acts360.com]
Sent: 18 October 2011 02:02
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: San recommendations

Recommendations..

Need about 12TB, ability to scale up, ISCSI for SQL/Exchange, Dedupe at the 
block level, Don't need replication at the moment.

Got a quote on an EQ box, anyone else throw out recommendations.

Thx

Greg Sweers
CEO
ACTS360.com
P.O. Box 1193
Brandon, FL  33509
813-657-0849 Office
813-758-6850 Cell
813-341-1270 Fax


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

--
MIRA Ltd

Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England
Registered in England and Wales No. 402570
VAT Registration  GB 100 1464 84

The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the 
intended recipient.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and 
notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax.  You should not copy, forward or 
otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited.

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: San recommendations

[Garcia-Moran, Carlos]

Compellent, Couldn't be happier, Great Management tool's, easy to setup, great 
scalability (not forklift like EMC), very nicely priced

From: Lists - Level Five [mailto:li...@levelfive.us]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 10:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: San recommendations

Nexenta?

From: Greg Sweers 
[mailto:gswe...@acts360.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: San recommendations

Recommendations..

Need about 12TB, ability to scale up, ISCSI for SQL/Exchange, Dedupe at the 
block level, Don't need replication at the moment.

Got a quote on an EQ box, anyone else throw out recommendations.

Thx

Greg Sweers
CEO
ACTS360.com
P.O. Box 1193
Brandon, FL  33509
813-657-0849 Office
813-758-6850 Cell
813-341-1270 Fax


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

_
This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is
confidential and may be protected by attorney/client or other privileges.
This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information
intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not
an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including
attachments, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify me by e-mail reply and delete
the original message and any attachments from your system.
_

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Robocopy Help, please

[Crawford, Scott]

Add /NFL and /NDL to log only skips/errors.

From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 12:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Robocopy Help, please

I usually use this command to do an entire drive:

ROBOCOPY source dest: /MIR /COPYALL /MT /ZB /R:1 /W:1 /TEE /NP /TIMFIX /XD 
"$RECYCLE.BIN" "RECYCLER" "SIS Common Store" "System Volume Information" 
/LOG:c:\temp\robocopy.log

I don't know of a way to just log skips/errors though.

From: Sean Rector [sean.rec...@vaopera.org]
Sent: 17 October 2011 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Robocopy Help, please
Hello All,

I searched through the archives and I didn't find what I am looking for.

New SAN Drive (S).  I've already moved 99% (thought it was all, but I'm getting 
reports that I missed some things).  It's a Server 2008 R2 File Server Cluster.

I am trying to figure out the best robocopy command line for copying all files 
(& their appropriate permissions) that don't exist in the target; multithreaded 
and verbose logging.

Robocopy "E:\path\path\path name\" "S:\path\path\path name\" /s /zb /dcopy:T 
/copyall /xct /xn /r:5 /v /log:S:\Log.txt /MT:128

Would the above be the best method?

Sean Rector, MCSE

Information Technology Manager
Virginia Opera Association

E-Mail: sean.rec...@vaopera.org
Phone:(757) 213-4548 (direct line)
{+}

Tickets and Subscriptions On Sale Now!
Aida | Hansel And Gretel | Orphée | The Mikado
Visit us online at www.VaOpera.org or call 
1-866-OPERA-VA

Experience the Beauty, Power & Passion of Virginia Opera.



This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). Unless otherwise specified, persons unnamed as 
recipients may not read, distribute, copy or alter this e-mail. Any views or 
opinions expressed in this e-mail belong to the author and may not necessarily 
represent those of Virginia Opera. Although precautions have been taken to 
ensure no viruses are present, Virginia Opera cannot accept responsibility for 
any loss or damage that may arise from the use of this e-mail or attachments.

{*}

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


MIRA Ltd

Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England
Registered in England and Wales No. 402570
VAT Registration  GB 100 1464 84

The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the 
intended recipient.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and 
notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax.  You should not copy, forward or 
otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited.

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[Ken Schaefer]

Let's not confuse delivery with due diligence. In a regulated industry, I'm 
sure there are plenty of lawyers and risk managers who can give opinions and 
descriptions about what *should* happen. Delivery is something completely 
separate, and lots of very large organisations struggle to do anything in a 
timely manner.

However, I'm pretty sure that Suncorp's looked over the 
legal/regulatory/liability issues that this type of computing presents. And I 
suspect that the Australian banking regulator is also looking at it.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Fair enough!  However, re the Aus story (sorry, not time to read today), size 
is never a good indicator of performance (ahem!)!!  Honestly .. if I had a 
penny ..

Big corporations (16k is medium) struggle to change or control their 
environment as often as not.  Sony had terrible security.  The biggest banks 
can't detect rogue traders.  Lots of people, big and small, do things very 
poorly.




a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: 18 October 2011 03:53
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not the 
commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.

FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986

Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due diligence.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 11:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Not true - you take on liability as an employer.  You may protect the rest of 
your network to some extent with the example below, but it doesn't change your 
liability.  And I'd still want a VPN in front of RDS/Citrix rather than direct 
access - you wouldn't put your Citrix servers direct on the Internet ...



a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: 17 October 2011 16:28
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

You could provide all corporate services via VDI (RDS or Citrix). With other 
isolation techniques, it doesn't really matter what the end users bring in. 
Also have some policies for end-users to follow (e.g.
installing AV - that can be managed centrally without them having to be part of 
a domain).

There's at least one mid-tier bank in Aus doing this very thing
(Suncorp-Metway)

Cheers
Ken


WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Macs and vunerabilities

[Alan Davies]

Fair enough!  However, re the Aus story (sorry, not time to read today), size 
is never a good indicator of performance (ahem!)!!  Honestly .. if I had a 
penny ..

Big corporations (16k is medium) struggle to change or control their 
environment as often as not.  Sony had terrible security.  The biggest banks 
can't detect rogue traders.  Lots of people, big and small, do things very 
poorly.




a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] 
Sent: 18 October 2011 03:53
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not the 
commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.

FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986

Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due diligence.

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 11:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

Not true - you take on liability as an employer.  You may protect the rest of 
your network to some extent with the example below, but it doesn't change your 
liability.  And I'd still want a VPN in front of RDS/Citrix rather than direct 
access - you wouldn't put your Citrix servers direct on the Internet ...



a

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: 17 October 2011 16:28
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities

You could provide all corporate services via VDI (RDS or Citrix). With other 
isolation techniques, it doesn't really matter what the end users bring in. 
Also have some policies for end-users to follow (e.g.
installing AV - that can be managed centrally without them having to be part of 
a domain).

There's at least one mid-tier bank in Aus doing this very thing
(Suncorp-Metway)

Cheers
Ken


WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Macs and vunerabilities

[James Rankin]

It's all about the delivery of your corporate apps to any device, not
necessarily Windows ones. Citrix have a big investment with the Receiver,
which can deliver your corporate apps just about anywhere, but VMWare's
AppBlast is another beast altogether - delivering any corporate application
to a browser over an HTML5 stream. I'm assuming it must be leveraging some
kind of virtual desktop on the back end, but the idea of being able to
deliver these apps to vast amounts of different devices without even the
need to install one piece of software such as the Receiver is quite novel.

It all means that users can work in a familiar environment and still have
their apps for work. It's not all about delivering a full Windows desktop -
I assume a lot of them will just run individual apps from a Citrix Web
Interface or the like and maintain their connection to their own desktop for
familiarity. But there are a huge amount of different configurations that
can be delivered in this way.

There's also the whole scene of federated access and being able to log into
all of your apps - whether on the Internet, at work, or local - from one
place.

Personally I'm looking forward to the "BYO" initiative taking off a bit - it
certainly looks interesting.


On 18 October 2011 05:12, James Hill  wrote:

> Let's come back in a year or two and see what they think of their decision
> then.
>
> I can't get my head around making a change like this only to run
> Windows(via Citrix or whatever) on it anyway.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:53 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> When I said "it doesn't matter", I'm speaking to the technical points - not
> the commercials, legals, occupational health and safety etc. concerns.
>
> FWIW, this bank is already offering this in Aus:
>
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/suncorp-goes-byo-in-hardware-as-staff-are-encouraged-to-plug-in-their-devices/story-e6frgakx-1226029655986
>
> Given their size (16,000 employees), I'm sure they've done their due
> diligence.
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com]
> Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 11:30 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> Not true - you take on liability as an employer.  You may protect the rest
> of your network to some extent with the example below, but it doesn't change
> your liability.  And I'd still want a VPN in front of RDS/Citrix rather than
> direct access - you wouldn't put your Citrix servers direct on the Internet
> ...
>
>
>
> a
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
> Sent: 17 October 2011 16:28
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Macs and vunerabilities
>
> You could provide all corporate services via VDI (RDS or Citrix). With
> other isolation techniques, it doesn't really matter what the end users
> bring in. Also have some policies for end-users to follow (e.g.
> installing AV - that can be managed centrally without them having to be
> part of a domain).
>
> There's at least one mid-tier bank in Aus doing this very thing
> (Suncorp-Metway)
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
>
> 
> WARNING:
> The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may
> be legally privileged.
>
> If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this
> email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named
> addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email
> or any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then
> delete the same and any copies.
>
> "CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office:
> Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>


--