DG01

Man I hope you get over yourself at some point because you're the reason EduGeek just lost an EduSupporter. You've done nothing for this forum except present how members should not conduct themselves.

This is no longer an idea which I am actively promoting or suggesting. A request has been made for the topic to be removed. Least to say I am disappointed with the half "unprofessional" responses that I've received. I expected more to say the least.

There was no slightly superior attitude. There was an idea suggested, it got ripped apart, it became an elitism topic, then it become one of discussion attitudes. The simple response - I'll have the post removed because frankly it is clear than not every who works in Education actually cares, each to their own.

Argh, you could of warned me it was a decent distraction... Just managed to pluck up the strength to close it before I got addicted.

Sure put a smile on my face

Okay I feel the need to straighten thing's out immediately. I have clearly suggested something which has been discussed in the past, the idea of which was laid to rest due to time/management requirements. However, since that discussion time has passed. I was not aware of the previous discussion, but, I made my suggestion. The idea is very simple: a "secure" "verified" forum section for "verified" ICT Technicians and Network Managers who work in education in addition to the currently available forums. This idea would not aim to "change" the current format of EduGeek, nor would it attempt to undermine the excellent work and support the current Administrators put in to EduGeek. It would not be compulsory/it would be optional. Yes EduGeek is a resource - that said we all know how hard it is to manage networks, the time it takes and the dedication it requires. Some discussions on this forum may have at some point in the past, or may at some point in the future require a more "secure" "verified" discussion between professionals. Why should we as those professionals point out security holes/circumvention websites in such an "un-secure" way which actually feeds exploits to the end users of not only our own networks but to the end users of others. My aim has been simple from post #1: to establish feedback on whether people thought this would be a good idea or not. Yes there is the issue of how do we "verify" people. This could be done via multiple methods - phone calls, html/php uploads to a web server, email confirmation to generic office@ school emails, fax then a follow up call etc Yes there is the argument of you could find this information somewhere else, maybe you could, but again, do we really need to list the latest exploits for the end users of other networks? The majority of forums are related to technical discussions - security discussions are accessible to all registered members - so let's consider the idea of security/exploit/circumvention discussions for "verified" EduTech's. It's not a competition of elitist ism, it's not an aim to make EduGeek become Administrators/Moderators only. It's an idea to make some people's lives easier (who do our jobs and who aren't EduGeek members or who are EduGeek members but don't check back every day) and further develop EduGeek to a standing where exploit and circumvention related content is for "verified" EduTech's only. I don't want to read another post about elitism or showing off, reducing the appearance of EduGeek or people going to leave EduGeek because Technology is possibly changing. This is IT - there's years of change to come and EduGeek's aim from day #1 I imagine was always to keep up to date with IT in Education. Now let's all buck up and act like professionals. This isn't a "rip the idea apart discussion", "get all bitchy about a discussion". This is a discussion between people who help to shape the future of young people, care about education, care about their networks and strive to work with others in the same field achieving the best standards possible. /rant over - it had to be said.

Can I just point out that we have students actively registering to EduGeek in attempt to find out the latest flaws and proxy sites which are not filtered etc... This is what the idea is trying to achieve to protect.

No mention of sensitive information (with respect to data or students) anywhere because that would be in breach of the Data Protection Act. In this case "sensitive" is stuff that we understand the potential security/safety risks of but don't want students or other end users necessarily exploiting them before a solution is found or it is addressed.

Okay question for anyone who uses Neoteris for the VPN solution... I'm regularly finding that all of a sudden Java becomes a pain with the secure session manager for RDC's to the servers. Goes all cannot connect to localhost:XRANDOMPORTX on me. County seems to think it's because when Java updates it breaks the configuration. On occasions Java hasn't even updated and it's broken. I've tried cache cleaning, not allowing caching, complete Java uninstalls and reinstalls but completely fresh O/S is the only way I seem to be able to get things working again. Isn't ideal by any means at all... anyone faced this issue/got a fix?

All I'm going to say is that's absolutely fine. Reiterating the idea is to discuss more "sensitive" issues in a more "secure" format. If you chose not to go through verification then it would make no difference at all compared to your current EduGeek experience - you just wouldn't be privy to any discussions within the "secure" format.

Definitely sure. I find it quite amusing considering the students who done it, imagining them pushing a pink pram around school is quite funny, not surprising though.

This isn't about completely revamping the EduGeek registration system or loosing half the excellent technical support in the existing forums. It's simply a proposal to have more "sensitive" stuff in a "secure" forum. This is one of the good features about the RM Communities - cutting off access to non-technical support personnel, however, the issue there regularly is the Communities Charter which prevents discussions with regards to filtering and non-RMish or forum covered issues. EduGeek has the perfect platform for both an excellent general technical resource and also a more sensitive forum set-up to verified technical personnel. I'm surprised you would respond so lightly to the topic and say: "I will just go elsewhere". The point is to pull together the professionals that care about their networks and end users without compromising integrity. What cost do you place on the possible benefits of this idea going ahead? - The one minute to send an email or upload a html page, or via some other simple secure verification method. Again verification methods would need to be talked about but we're talking very simple quick verification methods. The key has to be simple and easy for all.

Had to laugh when I got this:

Well being as it's my idea I'd be happy to work in with the EduGeek Admins and any few volunteers that there may be in defining verification methods and managing the project. I personally have a tonne of contract minutes left at the end of the month so to me this idea would be a good cause to use those minutes on. It's not something I can obviously say the volunteers would pay for because that's their decision but others may find themselves in similar positions to me who are able to free up 30 minutes to make some quick calls. I feel that the potential benefit to the community/professional base here could be rewarding which is why I'm so open to spending time towards seeing the idea through.

But an alternative could be: - 30 second call to the school?; - emailing the default office@ (or other email listed on website) to verify your ID? But a finely tuned list of methods to verify someone's identity could be drawn up. Question is if we found a method suitable do you feel that this would be a good idea?