CloudatCost OpenDNS Issue
-
At least you don't have any open SMB shares.
-
@thecreativeone91 How do you know this? I bet he did it is a domain controller after all.
-
-
I am using AJ as my DNS server now! THANKSAJ! =P
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Aaron-Studer said:
I would never trust that DC again. Time to rebuild.
It's secured with Webroot. Also, there's been no indication of an attack. I'm not decomming it without a good reason.
It's not like he'll have it for long anyway. He doesn't have a datacenter license for every CPU in the cloud so he can't run anything but a demo license that expires in 90 days there.
Why don't you just run the Standard version. Granted Cloud@Cloud not having a infrastructure based firewall option is not really the place for something like a DC.
-
DNS is working great for me.
-
@thecreativeone91 Me too. Super Fast! So much better then OpenDNS!
-
Your firewall should be blocking everything on your public connection except RDP.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Why don't you just run the Standard version. Granted Cloud@Cloud not having a infrastructure based firewall option is not really the place for something like a DC.
Standard isn't valid on a cloud. Because the VM moves around regularly and he can't lock it down, standard is not an option. Only DC is a valid option and only if he maintains a license for every CPU in the cloud. It's hundreds of millions of dollars to license Windows this way. While technical feasible, you can't actually run Windows on a cloud using your own licenses. You can in certain non-cloud VPS types, but not in this cloud-based VPS type. MS has special licenses that come from the provider to make this possible so that Amazon, for example, can offer it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Standard isn't valid on a cloud. Because the VM moves around regularly and he can't lock it down, standard is not an option. Only DC is a valid option and only if he maintains a license for every CPU in the cloud. It's hundreds of millions of dollars to license Windows this way. While technical feasible, you can't actually run Windows on a cloud using your own licenses. You can in certain non-cloud VPS types, but not in this cloud-based VPS type. MS has special licenses that come from the provider to make this possible so that Amazon, for example, can offer it.
Vultr offers Windows 2012 R2 for just $15 a month.
-
@Aaron-Studer said:
Vultr offers Windows 2012 R2 for just $15 a month.
Yes, everyone offers Windows except CloudatCost. They do "bring your own licensing" and leave it up to you to figure out that Microsoft doesn't offer any licenses that fit that scenario.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Why don't you just run the Standard version. Granted Cloud@Cloud not having a infrastructure based firewall option is not really the place for something like a DC.
Standard isn't valid on a cloud. Because the VM moves around regularly and he can't lock it down, standard is not an option. Only DC is a valid option and only if he maintains a license for every CPU in the cloud. It's hundreds of millions of dollars to license Windows this way. While technical feasible, you can't actually run Windows on a cloud using your own licenses. You can in certain non-cloud VPS types, but not in this cloud-based VPS type. MS has special licenses that come from the provider to make this possible so that Amazon, for example, can offer it.
Yeah But isn't Cloud@Cloud Technically a VPS that doesn't move around unless re-imaged. Odd thing is you can apply for license mobility to run every MS Server application in the cloud using SA. But you can't with windows server itself.
-
@Aaron-Studer said:
Your firewall should be blocking everything on your public connection except RDP.
I would even block that.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yeah But isn't Cloud@Cloud Technically a VPS that doesn't move around unless re-imaged. Odd thing is you can apply for license mobility to run every MS Server application in the cloud using SA. But you can't with windows server itself.
It's a VPS to you as the customer, it's a cloud under the hood. This causes problems. Windows licensing requires that you know what is going on under the hood to be able to license. If CloudatCost can guarantee that there is no mobility or load balancing and you guarantee to re-images less than 90 days apart, you could get away with burning Standard licenses two for one (one VM per Standard license instead of two.) That's the best you could get and only if CloudatCost can guarantee that their load balancing will never move you around.
-
And given that they run VMware, I'm pretty sure they are load balancing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Aaron-Studer said:
I would never trust that DC again. Time to rebuild.
It's secured with Webroot. Also, there's been no indication of an attack. I'm not decomming it without a good reason.
It's not like he'll have it for long anyway. He doesn't have a datacenter license for every CPU in the cloud so he can't run anything but a demo license that expires in 90 days there.
Not sure what you're talking about. My key is fully activated.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
At least you don't have any open SMB shares.
Nope, this is a straight DC.
-
-
See?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Aaron-Studer said:
I would never trust that DC again. Time to rebuild.
It's secured with Webroot. Also, there's been no indication of an attack. I'm not decomming it without a good reason.
It's not like he'll have it for long anyway. He doesn't have a datacenter license for every CPU in the cloud so he can't run anything but a demo license that expires in 90 days there.
Not sure what you're talking about. My key is fully activated.
Just because it is activated doesn't mean that it meets the licensing terms. Either way I'm not sure one way or the other about the Microsoft licensing in this scenario, it is above and beyond what I have an understanding of.
