JRA

Welp, didn't need this at all Microsoft... We've got the proxy option to bypass local addresses set in group policy. We set this up aeons ago and that's been that. However, now we need to modify some of these settings for one OU. What I want to do is change the list of sites that are in the proxy exceptions list. I've noticed that Internet Explorer Maintenance is just not there in User Configuration any more. Thanks Microsoft. I thought I'd just knock the registry keys into HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings modifying ProxyOverride options but I can't seem to get anything to work! current script reads: Const HKEY_CURRENT_USER = &H80000001 strComputer = "." Set objRegistry = GetObject("winmgmts:\\" & strComputer & "\root\default:StdRegProv") strKeyPath = "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\ProxyOverride" strValueName = "" strValue = "www.fakesite.nothing.com" objRegistry.SetStringValue HKEY_CURRENT_USER, strKeyPath, strValueName, strValue Anyone know what to do, what I'm doing wrong and how to un-wrong it? Thanks in advance for any help!

Remains to be seen tbh. I know gmail tries to use TLS currently but fails back to non-secured if the other side doesn't support it. I have a funny feeling BT email is the only 'big' thing that doesn't support it now, but I've not done huge amounts of reading on it just yet. In fact, finding something that didn't support TLS for the real-world testing was a bit of a challenge! Forcing it on for absolutely everything (if I did so) probably wouldn't, in this modern world, be too much of a problem. He says... Longer-term we'll be going with Google's S/MIME but this fills the gap for us as it stands now.

In case anyone's Googling this and wants to do FN-GM's compliance rule bit to force TLS (which I did) it can be done on subject word, recipient list and all sorts. Brief overview and further to-and-fro here: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/data-protection-information-handling/195847-gmail-do-i-need-encrypted-email-add-gdpr-compliance-2.html#post1675092

Cheers - yes I'd spotted that before, but we'd need more than 100 tbh and their group pricing is a fair bit. Defo worth a look if you've 100 employees though.

Mr FN-GM if you do manage to point me in the direction of where you've set that up by subject-line text you'll be my new hero. Like Batman or something. If I manage to find it myself beforehand though I'll stick them up. EDIT - Oh wait wait! It's in the "Content compliance" bit I think, with it's own lil tickbox! I'm gonna play... MORE EDIT - Aight so we do this in Apps > G Suite > Settings for Gmail > Advanced settings > scroll down to Compliance section then Content compliance. It's all really simple in there tbh, so what I've done is outbound rule that looks for "SECURE" (I'm talking ALL CAPS here) at the start of the subject to force TLS (tickbox at the bottom, but explore the options ofc.) The benefit of all this is to force TLS, and if the other end doesn't support that, bounce the email back to sender. Google verified this would happen in chat, but I wanted to confirm with my own two eyes. To test, I guessed the best thing is to try sending something to somewhere that does support TLS, and to somewhere that doesn't. Hotmail does, seems to work ok, temp-mail.org gives you a throwaway account that definitely doesn't, and I do get a bounce message and all works as it should.

...Also also, how exactly have you set that up if I might ask? All I've got (from Apps > G Suite > Settings for Gmail > Advanced > OU > content compliance) is the option to enable TLS for a list of domains. I definitely like the sound of typing "SECURE" (all caps too) at the start of a message to TLS-ify it!

Ah, now, yes I recall you also mentioned this in my other thread (thanks again btw!) How have you experienced life on the network with it? Do things bounce back from the other side often? Operationally, how has it been?

Hi all, sorry if this is a painful question. I'm not DPO here, but want to keep very much on top of things which *could* become my problem. In all fairness, I've asked similar here, but I thought I'd stick this particular question here. We use gmail here and our DPO (and also SLT) would like us to be able to send encrypted emails with gmail, but the reasoning for it is GDPR compliance. As the date for compliance creeps closer I'd rather have something in place if we'll defo need it. Do we *need* to do so? If so, is anyone using anything in particular? We're looking at a couple (Virtru aren't replying, GAME I've only just contacted, Google are doing S/MIME 'any day now' but never today.) Thanks for any bones thrown!

Oh boy I wish they'd get a shift on! It's not around yet and my deadline is coming up. Anyone know when/got any goss before I ask Google when it's due?

It's for the GDPR-monster coming up. SLT want staff to have blanket-access to a reliable email encryption method. So long as they (and attachments) leave that gmail portal encrypted we're fine, or users have the option to always do so I should say. Our LA have the Egress system, which is kinda nice but for the fact that it's a separate Outlook system and it's perceived as too much for staff here to have two accounts, with one for encrypted email. Virtru have ignored my email-back request so far, which does not bode well for them, but I'm bEggared if I'm sitting through ten online seminars and demos and reams of special account enrichment managers before someone quotes me (un)happy. Having said that, it does look VERY nice indeed as a couple of us have said. Thanks everyone for chiming in though. I do quite fancy Google's own offering but this is indeed the beginning of paying for Google services I reckon.

Hi all - in line with the new GDPR commandments bestowed upon us next month, I'm looking seriously at encryption plugins for my users here. I'd pondered going with the Virtru suite, but wondered if any other GAFE schools had anything else in mind. Anything awesome, free (of cost as well as hassle) would also be nice to ponder. Anyone got any good ideas that way? Thanks all.

Cheers, yes I saw that too. It'd 'do' for use on site for sure (well, until the world becomes either full of spoofed certs or this all blows over by Christmas ofc) but it won't help the parents dramatically stabbing at the website and phoning reception full of frenzied cyber-paranoia. Worth having those GPOs in mind though.

I sure did! Comodo certs now. Have a read if not: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/07/beware_the_coming_chrome_certificate_apocalypse/ Bleh, first Dale Winton and now this. What a day.

Cruel and unusual - I love it! Thanks both!

Morning "How do you do it"-ers! I've need of a thing wot can crawl the school website for dead links and bring them to my attention. I've used Free Broken Link Checker - Online Dead Link Checking Tool once or twice, but I'm wondering if anyone else knows any freebies or had any recommendations that way. Thanks everyobody!

I think I love you. Thanks much for the patient pointers there.

Hello all, this is my first foray into this so please be kind! Bracing myself... Looking to deploy Office 2016 to Windows 7 clients, but I'd very much like to avoid any Office 365 or any One Drive integration. We use Gmail for email, so I'll also be removing Outlook, but I can probably manage that. Is it easy enough to 'get out of bed' of 365/One Drive or indeed any online anything-ness with it, either with GP options or .mst/installer switches? Am I demonstrating a big misunderstanding of anything my even asking the above? Thanks for any and all bones thrown!

Heh, yes one day (perhaps soon) I might, but the second part of that (the part where SLT come in and their own dedicated printer/in some places BOTH THEIR OWN COLOUR AND THEIR OWN MONO PRINTER are gone, and a post-it sits on the desk which effectively says "use the printer down the corridor on the right like a commoner") will get me hung and burned at the stake in the playground at pitchfork-point. In short, we're never getting rid of their precious precious printers. I'd definitely do that if I could, but I've also seen MFP implementation just fail spectacularly and at great expense, and been removed. Things have probably moved on a bit since then however.

Cheers for that! You would think so huh. But no. Tbh we have an agreement with a company who *maintain* our fleet and from whom we buy toners, and the very reason I don't want to lease is that I can get out of bed with them at a moment's notice if I need to, and I've been VERY tempted to do that on a number of occasions. If I were renting any nu ber of printers from them they'd have us by the proverbials, which is no good for me.

Hello everyone, My old, faithful printer fleet (largely of HP CP3505s and 4700s for colour, and Brother 2250DNs for mono) is starting to get a bit tired, parts are getting a bit thin on the ground, and it's time to put them out to pasture. Or out the window. I was wondering what people out there in the wide world use for printing these days. We've some Kyoceras too, but they're somewhat flakey. I wouldn't have more tbh. Does anyone have any recommendations for reliable workhorse printers? I'm looking for pretty much everything; easy to repair, hugely available parts, cheap etc. Thanks all for any suggestions.

Morning all - just heard a grumble from out there in the world that a recent MS update (one to specifically or as part of which addresses the widely-publicised vulnerability in Intel chips) has been making PCs sluggish as all heck. Has anyone had this or similar? I've had a little google but not found anything that's concrete. Rumours only or are we all about to get done over by whatever-it-s? Cheers all...

Ooh yes please! Shall I PM you email addy? Thanks.

Well, yes I *could* but I forsee this RAGGING netlogon (if we stick it there.) Also worriting the users. Also if (perish the thought) one of my users falls foul of the AUP and had an outdated version on %workstation% should we stick them somewhere locally then it might be grounds for muddying the waters. At least one centralised policy on the website can be accessed by things other than a school machine and read first, then we have it to wave at folks should we need. Sound idea though.

Cheers both - yes it'll be the 'for full terms see school website' sort of thing. I'm fairly sure now that limit can't be tinkered with. Cheers again though!

Hi DaveP - no nothing like that, just good old GP. Have a MASSIVE AUP but restricted by Microsoft's length so can't fit it all in. Just wondered if it was anything changeable or if I've just gotta put up "Please see website for full AUP and agree to all terms before using this computer" sorta thing.