Jaan

do it!

I don't seem to have this issue? we're syncing our ad to the utm for user level filtering, using standard operation mode with proxy a in the chrome broswer. unless i'm confusing the issue with something else.

luckily we're not affected by the VPN issues....... but yeah WOW alot of people aren't going to be happy!

but.....but......i just updated!

i could only see those from USA

I have four HP a5500 switches that will each need one of these. So four in total, I know they're end of line so will struggle to get them from HPE. Just wanted to know if anybody knows of suppliers that would sell refurbed switch modules like this? here's link to what i'm after: HP 2-Port 10GbE SFP+ A5500/E4800/E4500 Module JD368B

Didn't want to put this in server 2016 as it isn't 2016 specific per say. We currently haver a hyper-v host with a raid 10 volume (4 disks) and a replica server of the same spec. We just had a disk fail, not a biggie no performance hit, just a notification to say it isn't right. This got me thinking.... we are thinking of going S2D in the future but don't have the money for more nodes (at the mo). So we are continuing with two identical hyper-v hosts with replica and raid 10 for the VMS. We currently have 4 500gb in RAID 10 so 1tb usable. Our server can support 24 disks, and we were thinking that more, lower capacity disks make more sense from a cost a i/o perspective for a hyper-v host. How does RAID 10 scale? from what I understand in our current setup, I can loose 2 disks in total before i get data loss, one disk from each mirror? How does this work with raid10 that have more than 4 disks? I can only find examples with 4 disks (guess it's easier to understand) any help or info on this would be great. thanks

Just tested this works fine for us. Is there a way to get this to prompt for the domain credentials as opposed to having them stored in plain text? cheers for any input.

Ah bugger, (no pun intended). We're having issues with applications not authenticating via proxy. our web browsers seem unaffected. Our Groupcall xporter it also having issues as a result and also afew apps that office staff use. Looking at the logs it seems to correspond to the 9.5 update Do you know if they have acknowledged this bug? Never had to restore to a previous version so don't want to brick it!

We use Veeam with a dedicated system account that has write access. (Domain admins can only read) We back up as follows; Live data to SAN via Veeam everyday. 12:00pm and 6.00pm SAN replicated to NAS "other building" via Veeam (as above) SAN to tape offsite\offline every friday So we have d2d2d2tape lol

Welldone! you just jinxed us all!

Too long; didn't read

I've started getting this issue in friday (coincidental i think). Whenever we send an email to a domain that using Symanteccloud\Messagelabs, We get a bounce back from Google saying that the Symantec servers have "filtered" and refused the email. All other domains (not using symanteccloud) work fine. We have a picture in our email sig stored in a public Google location (Domain usercontentgoogle.com) which seems to be triggering the bounce back. Once we remove the Image it all works fine. Any ideas how i go about resolving this? I need to publicly host the image with a url that will not trigger symantecs filters. This is affecting at least two domain we're trying to contact, anybody else having this issue? Hopefully it will be resolved soon by symantec.....

Not sure how to check all servers automatically..... but here is where you remove it...server manager features; were a 2012 r2 2016 and win7 site... so i guess we'll be fine to remove this....can anybody confirm that? Looking for a GPO to apply server\client wide

Anybody know which update is needed to fix this vulnerability? We have a WSUS server that we actively monitor to push updates. We are a w7 2012 and 2016 site. Would be great if i could look for a specific KB. Whats the best method to disable or remove smb1 as i believe this is where the issue is unless im wrong. Maybe the mods could have a section in security that has info on how to check if your vulnerable and how to fix if you are? hope i dont see a ransomware screen when i get to work come monday.

We don't want users to create their own team drives. We rather have a pool of Team drive folders where they are added as members. Come 01/01/2018, Google says that it will be enabled for all users to create new team folders. It will be a free for all here! However, am i right in thinking that if i disable team drives at OU level, they can still use team drive where added as members (created by admin the in admin panel) and add new folders inside the admin created team drives?...... deep stuff! In reference to what google say here; "When Team Drives creation is disabled for an organizational unit, users in that organization can’t create new Team Drives, but they can be added to other Team Drives both within and outside of your domain."

make sure you have the latest Google chrome GPO templates try these locations:

Yep i fixed it using the above method also: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/internet-related-filtering-firewall/182708-google-not-secure-your-connection-not-private-2.html

I've resolved this issue at our site (windows 7) by doing the following: Installing the latest GPO templates for chrome and setting the following GPO to "Enabled" user config----admin templates----Classic administrative templates(ADM)------Google-----Google Chrome------ "Whether to allow certificates issued by local trust anchors that are missing the subjectalternativename extension" From what i understand, come chrome version 64, this policy will no longer work but hopefully SOPHOS (in our case) will have updated the certs to have the missing info.

Do you have this enabled in Gpo? ------ Hold the Windows Key and press “R” to bring up the Run dialog box. Type “gpedit.msc” then press “Enter“. The Local Group Policy Editor appears. Expand the following: Local Computer Policy Computer Configuration Administrative Templates System Logon Open “Hide Entry Points for Fast User Switching“. Select “Enabled” to turn Fast User Switching off. Set it to “Disable” to turn it on. Windows Hide entry points for fast user switching

Sorry to clarify, only admins can log other people out. Non admins are unable to to do this, they call us and we do a remote logout via screen share. sorry for the confusion.

I still use this in our windows 10 test environment, works fine and users aren't local admins

This an option? https://www.etb-tech.com/components/raid-sas-controllers/hdd-controllers

Worked a treat thank you very much!