I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
You can find used Cisco 1861s on ebay for around $150. I still use these all the time for my clients. Great thing about a REAL Cisco router is that it never really becomes obsolete.
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
You can find used Cisco 1861s on ebay for around $150. I still use these all the time for my clients. Great thing about a REAL Cisco router is that it never really becomes obsolete.
I have two of them in my homelab.
I had considered this option but even though I am on a budget and working for a medium npo here I'm not sure I want to run used equipment for it.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
You can find used Cisco 1861s on ebay for around $150. I still use these all the time for my clients. Great thing about a REAL Cisco router is that it never really becomes obsolete.
I have two of them in my homelab.
I had considered this option but even though I am on a budget and working for a medium npo here I'm not sure I want to run used equipment for it.
If used isn't up your alley, Cisco's ASA 5500-X series is quite nice. I've installed several 5506-Xs recently. The new GUI tool is very nice. Just keep in mind that the ASAs only have layer 3 ports (not switch ports) so you'll still need a switch. But they'll do automatic fail-over if you set it up. I usually see them going for around $400-$500
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
You can find used Cisco 1861s on ebay for around $150. I still use these all the time for my clients. Great thing about a REAL Cisco router is that it never really becomes obsolete.
I have two of them in my homelab.
I had considered this option but even though I am on a budget and working for a medium npo here I'm not sure I want to run used equipment for it.
If used isn't up your alley, Cisco's ASA 5500-X series is quite nice. I've installed several 5506-Xs recently. The new GUI tool is very nice. Just keep in mind that the ASAs only have layer 3 ports (not switch ports) so you'll still need a switch. But they'll do automatic fail-over if you set it up. I usually see them going for around $400-$500
Thanks for that. Those also look like some nice machines. I will add them to the list.
I guess we were under contract and the boss thought we weren't so the who project is torpedoed until next February anyway.
Hopefully I don't work here still.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Whatever you do, do not buy the pfsense prebuilt boxes. We did, and they are shit. And life sucks now.
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
This is kinda always my problem. I love UBNT, but this is because I've been using their Broadband Wireless products for nearly a decade, and as a result, I prefer to use the stuff I know they're good at.
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
This is kinda always my problem. I love UBNT, but this is because I've been using their Broadband Wireless products for nearly a decade, and as a result, I prefer to use the stuff I know they're good at.
and to be clear I have two UBNT AC's ready to go into service soon.
They make great stuff just. . .There are better options when we're talking layer 2.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
This is kinda always my problem. I love UBNT, but this is because I've been using their Broadband Wireless products for nearly a decade, and as a result, I prefer to use the stuff I know they're good at.
and to be clear I have two UBNT AC's ready to go into service soon.
They make great stuff just. . .There are better options when we're talking layer 2.
I will say that I've been very happy with the EdgeSwitch. But when it comes to tower sites, they have.....no solution anymore. The Toughswitch had loads of problems and great features, but they've all but discontinued it and have replaced it with.....nothing. I've been using Netonix switches, which are great, don't get me wrong, it's just a little sad that UBNT dropped that ball. To say nothing of the fact that they still don't have a non-beta management piece.
It's a little frustrating in the face of all this UniFi development, and how well the Controller software runs.
I will need to put in a firewall soon. I could home grow or I could just buy a box. Any recommendations?
I have a limited budget of around $500 or so.
You could just run pfsense on a computer with two nics.
That was what I was most likely going to do but I figured if there was an appliance out there that was super great or something I am not against checking it out.
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
You can find used Cisco 1861s on ebay for around $150. I still use these all the time for my clients. Great thing about a REAL Cisco router is that it never really becomes obsolete.
I have two of them in my homelab.
I had considered this option but even though I am on a budget and working for a medium npo here I'm not sure I want to run used equipment for it.
If used isn't up your alley, Cisco's ASA 5500-X series is quite nice. I've installed several 5506-Xs recently. The new GUI tool is very nice. Just keep in mind that the ASAs only have layer 3 ports (not switch ports) so you'll still need a switch. But they'll do automatic fail-over if you set it up. I usually see them going for around $400-$500
The next gen application-layer "Firepower" stuff is weird tho. We evaluated them last year and cut them out of the short list because of setup and management problems.
Firepower is literally a Sourcefire VM that runs on the ASA and you have to route traffic from one internal interface to the VM virtual interface and back out for it to work. Managing Sourcefire is a whole different pane of glass from managing the ASA. But don't worry, they will sell you a management platform for that (which is another VM).
The Cisco employee who helped us with the proof of concept struggled with the Firepower configuration. He was somebody who came from the Sourcefire acquisition and kept saying stuff like "oh, sorry, Cisco changed this from my Sourcefire days"
It just didn't feel integrated at all.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
user has both Office 2010 and 2016 installed for... some reason
Uses 2010 daily for everything. Doesn't use 2016 or have shortcuts for it.
BitTitan does the migration, only applied to 2016, launches 2016 outlook when it finishes and user is on the new domain
User closes outlook and goes to lunch.
Comes back, opens 2010 which wasn't migrated.
Proceeds to send freakout email about how all her new mail and new outlook has been DELETED
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+2
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
Here's a fun one: user works from home by using a VPN to RDP to their work desktop.
This all works fine; the actual functionality is not the issue.
The problem is the shortcut to the saved RDP file on the laptop; when executed it pops up a security warning saying the document is outside their local network and can't be trusted.
What gives?
The RDP file itself is fine when run from its actual location but not the shortcut to the same file. Neither are blocked.
Eventually gave the user a shortcut to the folder containing the actual file because I'm not going to poke the clients horrendous mess of group policies lest it rise against its tormentors. Not just to track down* and disable one user's desktop redirection.
* N.B. Domain is 2003-based. Group Policy Management hasn't been invented yet.
Here's a fun one: user works from home by using a VPN to RDP to their work desktop.
This all works fine; the actual functionality is not the issue.
The problem is the shortcut to the saved RDP file on the laptop; when executed it pops up a security warning saying the document is outside their local network and can't be trusted.
What gives?
The RDP file itself is fine when run from its actual location but not the shortcut to the same file. Neither are blocked.
Eventually gave the user a shortcut to the folder containing the actual file because I'm not going to poke the clients horrendous mess of group policies lest it rise against its tormentors. Not just to track down* and disable one user's desktop redirection.
* N.B. Domain is 2003-based. Group Policy Management hasn't been invented yet.
Try adding the FQDN for your domain to Internet Explorer's Local Intranet zone. Yes, Internet Explorer - even though MSIE isn't involved here, that's still where Windows checks to see if a location is trusted for the purposes of opening a shortcut.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+2
RandomHajileNot actually a SnatcherThe New KremlinRegistered Userregular
Referencing Hosts via Fully Qualified Domain Names
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+7
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Oh my favorite thing to see when using MWB Chameleon.
What was the big stuff that required chameleon? I've only ever had to run it a few times.
Also had one that even chameleon wouldn't run on. The malware that was installed just nuked the executable every time I moved it over. I had to download it on my computer, rename the executable, and run it from a flash drive.
So, i'm pretty sure my boss literally does not understand the concept of virtual infrastructure. He's pointing at a 4 year old design document saying that SQL should be on a different physical server than [pick a service, say sharepoint] as justification that a VM running SQL needs to be on a completely separate virtual host cluster than the sharepoint VM. Not just a different host machine, a different cluster.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
So, i'm pretty sure my boss literally does not understand the concept of virtual infrastructure. He's pointing at a 4 year old design document saying that SQL should be on a different physical server than [pick a service, say sharepoint] as justification that a VM running SQL needs to be on a completely separate virtual host cluster than the sharepoint VM. Not just a different host machine, a different cluster.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
Does it actually say "different physical server" instead of "different host" or such? That's an unfortunate mistake if so.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
So, i'm pretty sure my boss literally does not understand the concept of virtual infrastructure. He's pointing at a 4 year old design document saying that SQL should be on a different physical server than [pick a service, say sharepoint] as justification that a VM running SQL needs to be on a completely separate virtual host cluster than the sharepoint VM. Not just a different host machine, a different cluster.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
Does it actually say "different physical server" instead of "different host" or such? That's an unfortunate mistake if so.
No, see, this is the bitch of it. to him different physical server and different host are one and the same. He literally does not understand the concept of virtualisation. We tried to tell him that when they mean different physical server, that was from before VM's were common, and what it means in modern sense is "not on the same OS install"
So, i'm pretty sure my boss literally does not understand the concept of virtual infrastructure. He's pointing at a 4 year old design document saying that SQL should be on a different physical server than [pick a service, say sharepoint] as justification that a VM running SQL needs to be on a completely separate virtual host cluster than the sharepoint VM. Not just a different host machine, a different cluster.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
Does it actually say "different physical server" instead of "different host" or such? That's an unfortunate mistake if so.
No, see, this is the bitch of it. to him different physical server and different host are one and the same. He literally does not understand the concept of virtualisation. We tried to tell him that when they mean different physical server, that was from before VM's were common, and what it means in modern sense is "not on the same OS install"
He. Doesn't. Get. It.
Have you tried something like some marbles and a Tupperware container to try and get the point across?
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
So, i'm pretty sure my boss literally does not understand the concept of virtual infrastructure. He's pointing at a 4 year old design document saying that SQL should be on a different physical server than [pick a service, say sharepoint] as justification that a VM running SQL needs to be on a completely separate virtual host cluster than the sharepoint VM. Not just a different host machine, a different cluster.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
Does it actually say "different physical server" instead of "different host" or such? That's an unfortunate mistake if so.
No, see, this is the bitch of it. to him different physical server and different host are one and the same. He literally does not understand the concept of virtualisation. We tried to tell him that when they mean different physical server, that was from before VM's were common, and what it means in modern sense is "not on the same OS install"
He. Doesn't. Get. It.
Have you tried something like some marbles and a Tupperware container to try and get the point across?
So, i'm pretty sure my boss literally does not understand the concept of virtual infrastructure. He's pointing at a 4 year old design document saying that SQL should be on a different physical server than [pick a service, say sharepoint] as justification that a VM running SQL needs to be on a completely separate virtual host cluster than the sharepoint VM. Not just a different host machine, a different cluster.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
Does it actually say "different physical server" instead of "different host" or such? That's an unfortunate mistake if so.
No, see, this is the bitch of it. to him different physical server and different host are one and the same. He literally does not understand the concept of virtualisation. We tried to tell him that when they mean different physical server, that was from before VM's were common, and what it means in modern sense is "not on the same OS install"
He. Doesn't. Get. It.
Have you tried something like some marbles and a Tupperware container to try and get the point across?
That'd probably get me fired. :sad:
I guess but I think virtualization would be a pretty handy concept for him to understand going forward.
You'd be doing the guy a favor.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
So, i'm pretty sure my boss literally does not understand the concept of virtual infrastructure. He's pointing at a 4 year old design document saying that SQL should be on a different physical server than [pick a service, say sharepoint] as justification that a VM running SQL needs to be on a completely separate virtual host cluster than the sharepoint VM. Not just a different host machine, a different cluster.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
Does it actually say "different physical server" instead of "different host" or such? That's an unfortunate mistake if so.
No, see, this is the bitch of it. to him different physical server and different host are one and the same. He literally does not understand the concept of virtualisation. We tried to tell him that when they mean different physical server, that was from before VM's were common, and what it means in modern sense is "not on the same OS install"
He. Doesn't. Get. It.
Have you tried something like some marbles and a Tupperware container to try and get the point across?
That'd probably get me fired. :sad:
I guess but I think virtualization would be a pretty handy concept for him to understand going forward.
You'd be doing the guy a favor.
oh believe me. what was supposed to be a half hour meeting yesterday turned into 2 hours of 2 of us trying to explain high density high availability VM infrastructure to him, to no avail.
I should point out that in our server room we have approximately 22 single purpose physical servers, and 2 of them were purchased since I started here 4 months ago.
So, i'm pretty sure my boss literally does not understand the concept of virtual infrastructure. He's pointing at a 4 year old design document saying that SQL should be on a different physical server than [pick a service, say sharepoint] as justification that a VM running SQL needs to be on a completely separate virtual host cluster than the sharepoint VM. Not just a different host machine, a different cluster.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
Does it actually say "different physical server" instead of "different host" or such? That's an unfortunate mistake if so.
No, see, this is the bitch of it. to him different physical server and different host are one and the same. He literally does not understand the concept of virtualisation. We tried to tell him that when they mean different physical server, that was from before VM's were common, and what it means in modern sense is "not on the same OS install"
He. Doesn't. Get. It.
Have you tried something like some marbles and a Tupperware container to try and get the point across?
That'd probably get me fired. :sad:
I guess but I think virtualization would be a pretty handy concept for him to understand going forward.
You'd be doing the guy a favor.
oh believe me. what was supposed to be a half hour meeting yesterday turned into 2 hours of 2 of us trying to explain high density high availability VM infrastructure to him, to no avail.
I should point out that in our server room we have approximately 22 single purpose physical servers, and 2 of them were purchased since I started here 4 months ago.
I'm sorry.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
So I mean, if anyone has any resources/white papers they know of where it explicitly states that you can run every VM on the same Virtual Host Cluster and that's fine and a "best practice" Please, for the love of god point me to it.
So I mean, if anyone has any resources/white papers they know of where it explicitly states that you can run every VM on the same Virtual Host Cluster and that's fine and a "best practice" Please, for the love of god point me to it.
Wouldn't any VM white paper cover that since that's the entire point of virtualization?
VMs let you pool your resources and allocate dynamically so that you don't have a bunch of idle space heaters...
Surely there is a VM 101 article that you can forward. If he still doesn't get it, well, move on with the project his way and look for another job if it's going to drive you insane? >_>
So I mean, if anyone has any resources/white papers they know of where it explicitly states that you can run every VM on the same Virtual Host Cluster and that's fine and a "best practice" Please, for the love of god point me to it.
Wouldn't any VM white paper cover that since that's the entire point of virtualization?
VMs let you pool your resources and allocate dynamically so that you don't have a bunch of idle space heaters...
Surely there is a VM 101 article that you can forward. If he still doesn't get it, well, move on with the project his way and look for another job if it's going to drive you insane? >_>
See, hilarioulsy white papers written I think just basically assume this. It doesn't really need to be stated.
The thing is I love this employer. The salary and benefits are great, my co-workers are fantastic, and I can say that this is a great place to work. My boss is just..... older and doesn't really get modern things that well, and doesn't seem to take disagreement well.
Posts
Ubiquiti USG!
Depends on what you need it for. I'd recommend either building a PfSense box or buying a Mikrotik CCR 1009, depending on your needs.
drums in the deep
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Thanks!
As much as I love Ubiquiti I'd rather go with something a little more hearty. The Mikrotik is looking to be the right box if I don't build out a pfsense machine.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
You can find used Cisco 1861s on ebay for around $150. I still use these all the time for my clients. Great thing about a REAL Cisco router is that it never really becomes obsolete.
I have two of them in my homelab.
I had considered this option but even though I am on a budget and working for a medium npo here I'm not sure I want to run used equipment for it.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
If used isn't up your alley, Cisco's ASA 5500-X series is quite nice. I've installed several 5506-Xs recently. The new GUI tool is very nice. Just keep in mind that the ASAs only have layer 3 ports (not switch ports) so you'll still need a switch. But they'll do automatic fail-over if you set it up. I usually see them going for around $400-$500
Thanks for that. Those also look like some nice machines. I will add them to the list.
I guess we were under contract and the boss thought we weren't so the who project is torpedoed until next February anyway.
Hopefully I don't work here still.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Whatever you do, do not buy the pfsense prebuilt boxes. We did, and they are shit. And life sucks now.
This is kinda always my problem. I love UBNT, but this is because I've been using their Broadband Wireless products for nearly a decade, and as a result, I prefer to use the stuff I know they're good at.
and to be clear I have two UBNT AC's ready to go into service soon.
They make great stuff just. . .There are better options when we're talking layer 2.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I will say that I've been very happy with the EdgeSwitch. But when it comes to tower sites, they have.....no solution anymore. The Toughswitch had loads of problems and great features, but they've all but discontinued it and have replaced it with.....nothing. I've been using Netonix switches, which are great, don't get me wrong, it's just a little sad that UBNT dropped that ball. To say nothing of the fact that they still don't have a non-beta management piece.
It's a little frustrating in the face of all this UniFi development, and how well the Controller software runs.
The next gen application-layer "Firepower" stuff is weird tho. We evaluated them last year and cut them out of the short list because of setup and management problems.
Firepower is literally a Sourcefire VM that runs on the ASA and you have to route traffic from one internal interface to the VM virtual interface and back out for it to work. Managing Sourcefire is a whole different pane of glass from managing the ASA. But don't worry, they will sell you a management platform for that (which is another VM).
The Cisco employee who helped us with the proof of concept struggled with the Firepower configuration. He was somebody who came from the Sourcefire acquisition and kept saying stuff like "oh, sorry, Cisco changed this from my Sourcefire days"
It just didn't feel integrated at all.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
All the ASA stuff works like the old ASA you know and "love."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
user has both Office 2010 and 2016 installed for... some reason
Uses 2010 daily for everything. Doesn't use 2016 or have shortcuts for it.
BitTitan does the migration, only applied to 2016, launches 2016 outlook when it finishes and user is on the new domain
User closes outlook and goes to lunch.
Comes back, opens 2010 which wasn't migrated.
Proceeds to send freakout email about how all her new mail and new outlook has been DELETED
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
This all works fine; the actual functionality is not the issue.
The problem is the shortcut to the saved RDP file on the laptop; when executed it pops up a security warning saying the document is outside their local network and can't be trusted.
What gives?
The RDP file itself is fine when run from its actual location but not the shortcut to the same file. Neither are blocked.
Eventually gave the user a shortcut to the folder containing the actual file because I'm not going to poke the clients horrendous mess of group policies lest it rise against its tormentors. Not just to track down* and disable one user's desktop redirection.
* N.B. Domain is 2003-based. Group Policy Management hasn't been invented yet.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Try adding the FQDN for your domain to Internet Explorer's Local Intranet zone. Yes, Internet Explorer - even though MSIE isn't involved here, that's still where Windows checks to see if a location is trusted for the purposes of opening a shortcut.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
Be
Referencing Hosts via Fully Qualified Domain Names
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
What was the big stuff that required chameleon? I've only ever had to run it a few times.
Also had one that even chameleon wouldn't run on. The malware that was installed just nuked the executable every time I moved it over. I had to download it on my computer, rename the executable, and run it from a flash drive.
A few people reply to the email asking me if my email is legit.
That's cute, but I really do appreciate the attempt. E for Effort.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
2 of us cannot convince him otherwise. I'm kind of losing my mind.
nah. Just write it into the hosts table and be done with it.
Does it actually say "different physical server" instead of "different host" or such? That's an unfortunate mistake if so.
I.
Will.
Give.
You.
One.
Just one.
Fucking.
Guess.
Coupon app?
Ding ding ding
Tell him what he's won, Johnny.
Three coupon apps. All for the same store.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
No, see, this is the bitch of it. to him different physical server and different host are one and the same. He literally does not understand the concept of virtualisation. We tried to tell him that when they mean different physical server, that was from before VM's were common, and what it means in modern sense is "not on the same OS install"
He. Doesn't. Get. It.
Have you tried something like some marbles and a Tupperware container to try and get the point across?
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
That'd probably get me fired. :sad:
I guess but I think virtualization would be a pretty handy concept for him to understand going forward.
You'd be doing the guy a favor.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
oh believe me. what was supposed to be a half hour meeting yesterday turned into 2 hours of 2 of us trying to explain high density high availability VM infrastructure to him, to no avail.
I should point out that in our server room we have approximately 22 single purpose physical servers, and 2 of them were purchased since I started here 4 months ago.
I'm sorry.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Wouldn't any VM white paper cover that since that's the entire point of virtualization?
VMs let you pool your resources and allocate dynamically so that you don't have a bunch of idle space heaters...
Surely there is a VM 101 article that you can forward. If he still doesn't get it, well, move on with the project his way and look for another job if it's going to drive you insane? >_>
See, hilarioulsy white papers written I think just basically assume this. It doesn't really need to be stated.
The thing is I love this employer. The salary and benefits are great, my co-workers are fantastic, and I can say that this is a great place to work. My boss is just..... older and doesn't really get modern things that well, and doesn't seem to take disagreement well.
http://www.vmware.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/vmware/en/pdf/infographic/vmw-top5-reasons-infographic.pdf
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm