Gorbyhail

Wondering if we can expect this to be a regular occurrence... twice is one more than too much.

Happening again for us... only one report thus far although I expect others know about the IE workaround from the last occurrence.

Our school is currently moving over to GSuite and as part of that we've moved all students from using Outlook to using GMail and are also encouraging them to use Google Apps on our CC4 Windows 7 PCs instead of Office etc. Historically we have blocked all chrome:// urls through the student user group policy, however we have now made an exception for chrome://print. We've verified that this works with a student test account which uses the same group policy as students but we are still getting students saying they cannot do so as it is blocked. Is there anything I'm missing that would be preventing them from printing? (I realise this may not even be a problem with CC4 but I thought it would be worth posting here first before I do so elsewhere!)

Ah! I thought that might work, but decided to wait until I got a response or two on here. Thank you very much, I'll see if I can put that in place on Monday

We've installed the CC4UPD212 patch but wish to reverse it for a certain group of machines, essentially re-enabling TLS 1.0 + 1.1. Creating a separate registry policy in which the changes are reversed seems to do nothing (perhaps the patch overrides it at a higher level??) and while removing the registry files the patch adds on individual machines works as a short-term fix, after a couple reboots this reverts. Would anyone here have any insight into how we can solve this without disabling or removing the patch entirely?

Having become entirely sick of machine build times and reliability, today I noticed an option in the pre-build configuration to "retain existing Community Connect 4 packages". What does this actually do in regards to outdated versions of packages etc? Fearing the mighty RM CC4, my colleagues have never even dared to activate this before a build, but honestly if this speeds the process up while keeping things satisfyingly up to date, I'm willing to take the leap.

Did they say this is going to be compulsory?

Sorry for what is likely the latest in a long long line of GDPR-based questions, but I was reading this thread: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/data-protection-information-handling/195907-gdpr-usb-pen-drives.html And I am now somewhat concerned about what GDPR means in relation to sending off USB drives, CDs, DVDs etc to exam boards, potentially with personal information, unencrypted. Should we be making any changes to our procedures in regards to this? Even if it is as simple as encrypting the media and sending a password separately. Thanks in advance!

Haha, I only wish I had the nerve to say that, but alas I would feel far too bad and/or a little bit pathetic. Chances are I could just pass along where and when I know some vandalism occurred so that the appropriate footage could be sent back to me. Hopefully (or not). Either way, I will try and bring up to my team the fact that having access to even just the CCTV in the computer rooms would make preventing this sort of damage a lot easier. I have looked into this as someone else suggested it and we do in fact have user logs for every PC in the school! They don't show logouts, but even just knowing where and when each person logs on is a good place to start with catching the worst offenders.

Thanks for all the responses thus far - some really good advice from the point of view of a junior technician looking to make his own job a little easier! I like the idea of having a timestamped user log for each machine, it would definitely help catch the worst culprits (assuming the teachers are interested in doing so). I'm going to look into this more as it could well be something we already have access to. Unfortunately we don't use impero here, but instead a litany of systems including RM CC4, which may well have detailed logs somewhere. Making a note of when all the computers/peripherals are in a pleasing state and then when they are not has been an idea thrown around, but given how spread out all the computer rooms are, it would be a bit of a nightmare. Some rooms are a lot worse than others though, so perhaps it is still something we will do. This is mainly my responsibility and I do try to keep things as nice as possible but won't always replace an entire keyboard because of a single key (unless specifically asked). I do try and find spare keys for them however, but it all feels very futile when within a few days the whole thing will be thrown out because some kid decided that collecting space bars is a good career choice. This would be great... assuming I had access. As far as I'm aware only the Facilities Manager is allowed to access the footage freely, and anyone else who wishes to do so must watch it in his office supervised by him. If I can pinpoint the time when the vandalism happens then this would be a valid solution, but would probably be out of my hands at that point, up into the arms of senior leadership who I admit have a million better things to do than chase up those with a fetish for rearranging qwerty keyboards into abcd ones.

Hi - first post here! I'm aware this is an incredibly general request, but it's been something that my colleagues and I have discussed a couple times and I wanted to get some outside opinions. How do you prevent hardware vandalism/damage on the software and general administration side of things (eg AUP, recording when pupils use machines, keeping close track of when damage occurs etc). I apologise again for the very poorly worded question - to put it a simpler way, how can we prevent/limit vandalism or damage to hardware in ways other than direct physical protection, which is essentially unworkable here for various reasons.