Primus

Hi, as said in our PM we would be very interested in this.

The issues we've seen are exclusively when using the SH3 in router mode - I use mine in modem mode and have no issues.

Our Smoothwall is currently successfully blocking HotSpot Shield Tom

I'm sure I've subsequently seen Q2 2021 now. Cannot remember where though.

Interesting as that isn't what the documentation says as far as I can see.

Unless I've missed something SMTP is sticking around: Legacy office devices Examples: scanners and multifunctional printers that send email Continue using legacy office devices with SMTP. Other protocols (such as POP3 and IMAP) will be blocked unless they use OAuth.

I think Windows Defender updates 3 times daily.

Unless I've missed something SMTP is sticking around: Legacy office devices Examples: scanners and multifunctional printers that send email Continue using legacy office devices with SMTP. Other protocols (such as POP3 and IMAP) will be blocked unless they use OAuth.

Just to come back to this, we use a Smoothwall and I've currently got Hotspot Shield blocked - just tested, it cannot connect on our WiFi.

Well in my testing I cannot get a VPN to connect in our environment and I’ve tried all the major ones.

It doesn't sound like they've contacted support and escalated it through engineering so a bit difficult to blame Ubiquiti. I also haven't heard of this happening in a widespread manner so once again, hard to blame Ubiquiti.

Only 8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4. and 9.9.9.9

To be fair if you massively lock down what is available on the BYOD network - eg. close all ports and only open www and dns and then lock DNS down to only certain providers etc. you can effectively block the vast vast majority.

The SuperHub does have major issues with VPNs to be fair - they're not wrong. It's definitely the SH as I have mine in modem mode and it works fine but it doesn't consistently work if it's in router mode - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

No your example involved hardware purchases. The software in the case at hand is free and available on Windows. Oh and the request has been made - the technician is looking for alternatives but if the course/qualification/scheme of work requires Android Studio then this isn't appropriate.

To be fair they're using industry standard software that's free - they're not asking for anything unreasonable. Your example involving Macs is totally different!

I don't mean to be rude but isn't this the tail wagging the dog? If they want to teach using Android Studio isn't it up to us as technicians to provide the tool requested? We don't know but they may have written a curriculum using Android Studio or perhaps purchased one.

A donkey for a child in the third world.

If they're school issued Chromebooks then surely you control the extensions and apps they can install? If you speak to Smoothwall you might find they add L7 free of charge. For BYoD we massively locked down ports that could get out on that vLAN.

Wow is January 2021 their latest target? They're so unbelievably behind, they're going to put themselves in danger of losing their dominant position in the market with the way they're going on.

Have you gone through their support process beginning with chat and escalating or posted on their forums. If this was a widespread problem I'm sure their forums would be full of similar posts etc.

Cleary being civil isn't special treatment and it is clear I didn't mean that it was. SB have had major and prolonged issues for years now, they then went entirely silent on here on the matter. Every time they have issues they blame a third party - their line is always our network is superb, it wasn't an issue with our network etc. At no point has the discussion lacked civility or professionalism, indeed if you read the thread you will see that schools are now having to take legal advice on rescission of the contract due to the significant issues. I do also think it is entirely proper that their sponsorship and the associated kudos and associated recommendation/endorsement that comes of being a sponsor of EduGeek is questioned.

There was no profanity, no unprofessional comments but what you were seeing is many members very very unhappy with a service that has lurched from issue to issue over a very extended time frame. The posts were directly relevant as they picked up on points made by a director of the firm. So is it appropriate that a brand with so many issues and so many unhappy members continues to sponsor and advertise on EduGeek - you carrying their name and advertisements can be seen to be a recommendation/endorsement?

This isn't a good look - they're a forum sponsor and now their threads are receiving special treatment - where was anyone unprofessional?

Seriously?! What a ridiculous post!