Has anyone used a good system for managing the look of email signatures?
We use o365 for email with a mix of users on the web app and the local outlook client install. We've had a standardized signature for a while now but it was just something we taught users how to do for themselves. The bosses are wanting to have a solution where it can be centrally managed now.
I found this from just googling but don't know if it is any good :
https://www.exclaimer.com/email-signature-software
Thanks
Has anyone used one of the form builder type services where you can define a form for an onsite technician to complete while on site. We have a few field techs which visit some of our company farms to check on operations at these remote sites and right now we are still using the paper / clipboard approach for their site visit reports.
I had found the following which looked like they might be worth checking into but would be interested in checking out others if someone had a recommendation.
https://www.fastfieldforms.com
https://www.zerionsoftware.com/iformbuilder
Thanks.
@Dashrender said in Webcam recommendations for desktop users ...:
@JaredBusch said in Webcam recommendations for desktop users ...:
At this point, whatever you can find in stock.
Exactly. I've purchased a few Taotuo cameras from Amazon (about all i could find) one was OK, the other was crap.
Good luck finding much of anything.
Ok. I didn't realize supply was still that tight. I thought it had loosened some. I'll see what I can find then and hope for the best.
We're looking to get some webcams for some of our desktop users to have for web conferencing. I'm not looking for anything real high end. Just decent camera with built in microphone. Does anyone have any recommendations on one's they've been happy with?
Thanks
@JaredBusch said in Fanvil transfer to voicemail using dsskey ...:
@BraswellJay said in Fanvil transfer to voicemail using dsskey ...:
Do you know what firmware version is on your phone? I
x4u-2.2.1.z
It was a firmware issue for me as well. I was on 1.10.x and upgraded to 2.2.11 and after that it worked exactly as you described above.
Thanks for the help!
@JaredBusch said in Fanvil transfer to voicemail using dsskey ...:
I do not know of any way to do it with only a single keypress.
For sending calls to voicemail directly, I make a prefix key.
The prefix key labeled "To VM" has the dial code.*by default in FreePBX, and in your case, it would be#.Then teach the operator this method:
- Press Xfer
- Press To VM
- Press BLF
This works on both Yealink and Fanvil.
This didn't work on my system. Do you know what firmware version is on your phone? I notice mine looks pretty old actually so I think I'll upgrade to the latest and see if that is part of my issue.
I've been playing with a fanvil phone and the only thing I can't seem to make work like I want is transfer to voicemail with the dsskey.
On our system the transfer to voicemail code is #<ext>. This seems to be working fine if I directly key in the extension. However, what I'd like to do is be able to in place of dialing the extension, is be able to hit the dsskey of the extension instead. So #<hitDSSkey>. When I do it this way though I simply get a straight blind transfer to the extension but not direct to voicemail.
Here is the configuration of the key on the phone :
The fourth column (BLF/BXFER) I thought maybe I could change this to BLF/DTMF but that didn't seem to have any affect.
I know Fanvil's are kind of new but has anyone who has tried one know how to program the transfer to voicemail on the dsskey's?
Thanks
We're looking at adding an intercom solution to facilitate conversation between our operators on one side and on the other side truck drivers that are waiting on a truck scale while product is being loaded. I can work with a direct point to point intercom or we do have a FreePBX phone system and the operations room already has a phone in that location that could be used for that side of the link.
The concern I have though is that the speaker/microphone on the truck scale side will be in a fairly noisy environment since even idling those trucks generate a fair amount of noise. The proposed mounting position for the equipment on the truck scale will be a good 3-4 feet from the driver as they are sitting in the cab of their trucks and I'm concerned that may be too far away for them to hear or for the microphone to pick up what they are saying.
Has anyone worked with a vendor that makes an intercom speaker/microphone solution that would work well in a noisy environment such as this? I would prefer a SIP solution but would consider other if that's what is needed.
We're going to be outfitting our conference rooms with some Crestron equipment. One aspect is that the Crestron devices will appear as extensions on our phone system and the vendor has asked for some configuration information including the "server realm" for the phone system.
This was new to me as I don't remember needing this when we set up our FreePBX systems. From what I have seen by googling it appears to be a way to have separate authentication domains. As best I can tell the realm is used when registering to FreePBX in the form of <extension>@<realm>. On our systems, all of our devices are registered in this format with the realm parameter being the IP address of our FreePBX system.
Would I be correct to say then that the realm of our system is simply the IP address (or FQDN) of the phone system?
I have 3 sites that I manage, 2 of which are using FreePBX and the other using a system from emetrotel which I believe to be a knockoff of FreePBX (many of the configuration pages are very similar to FreePBX; it is definitely asterisk based since I can get to the asterisk console).
One aspect of the emetrotel system that is different though is how the conference bridges work. In FreePBX it doesn't appear that you can schedule conference calls by time nor assign a different meeting ID for separate meetings occurring on the same bridge. On the emetrotel system we can do this. For instance I can set up a number such that the caller is asked to enter a code to identify the meeting and then a PIN for that meeting (which can be different for the call leader). Is there similar functionality in FreePBX?
With the FreePBX implementation the same PIN is set for every call that occurs on a particular conference bridge which would seem to be a security concern. For instance, you host a non sensitive call and give out the PIN and then later host a call that may contain sensitive discussion for which you wouldn't want callers from the previous call to be able to join even though they would have the PIN. I could use the leader wait option to try and limit the possibility that this could happen but that doesn't seem clean to me.
Am I overthinking this threat? For those that are using FreePBX for their conference call needs how are you managing setup and scheduling of calls to prevent unauthorized participants and also to keep different conferences with overlapping time periods from trampling each other?
@flaxking said in Cell signal boost in area with limited connectivity ...:
Some companies around here will install a booster on every vehicle in their fleet.
That's a really good idea. I hadn't even considered it from that perspective. I'm going to look into this possibility.
@Dashrender said in Cell signal boost in area with limited connectivity ...:
What about doing outdoor WiFi for those phones? Might be easier than cellular frequencies.
I wish that I could but the devices in the trucks are cell only and that's the primary use case. We have units in the trucks that keep up with driver logs, location, engine issues, etc ...
That all gets reported back to a database over the cell network and we access the information from a web portal.
Does anyone know if there is a way to boost cell signal strength in an area where connectivity is very limited. One of our plants is in a very rural area and cell connectivity is spotty at best. Sometimes it seems to work a little, other times, no connectivity at all. I know there are those indoor type units that connect to a LAN and get out over IP but we really need an outdoor rated unit that can cover a large part of our property. The primary use case is for a transportation system that we use where the units in the trucks connect over the cell network. Our drivers have trouble logging in and doing other functions because the units won't connect to the cell network while on our property. They have to drive a little ways down the road most of the time to ensure a successful connection.
If it matters we're with Verizon for our company cell phones but they have been no help at all, having only suggested the indoor units for inside the plant which is not what we really need. Some folks who have US Cellular plans are also able to have some limited connectivity at that site but it's still poor.
Are there 3rd party solutions available to address this kind of need? What I'm wondering is if we could erect a small tower on top of our building or something that could connect to the cell network and provide us coverage on our property.
@thecreaitvone91 said in Verify authenticity of a text thread from a screenshot ...:
Is is a straight SMS? not an iMessage etc.. Most carriers log these and the accuser could request a log for them in offical form however, they usually have to be within the last 30 days. I'm not sure if they provide these to consumer accounts, We can get them through both Verizon and AT&T for bussiness provided phones (and it's in the Use policy of accepting employer paid phones that we can)
It is SMS I believe. The accuser has an iPhone but the alleged perpetrator appears to have had an android so I think that means it was SMS although I may be wrong on that.
I did suggest to HR what @scottalanmiller mentioned; to ask to see the actual phone and not just pictures of the conversation. My understanding is that the accuser did subsequently allow HR to access their phone and it was verified that the screen shots were legitimate from the text messaging app on the phone. That may not be 100% proof but it seems likely that it was not faked.
The matter is in HR's hands now and I am not involved anymore.
Yep, that what I meant. Sorry I wasn't very clear in my response. That site makes it easier to fake an image of a conversation.
So to your earlier point, the best bet is to see if the accuser will share a physical look at their phone for verification to remove at least the chance that it is from image manipulation.
Yep.
I have found that there are web sites that allow you to fake text message threads also, so it wouldn't even really need any image editing to make it convincing.
Ok, Thanks. I thought that was likely true.
Our HR director came to me this morning and told me that an employee shared a text with him wherein a different employee made some inappropriate comments. From what I have been told the evidence, which I was not shown, is a picture of a text thread from the accusers phone that shows part of the conversation, including the name / phone number of the alleged perpetrator at the top.
Our HR believes the content to be credible but had asked me if there was any way to verify. I told our HR that with the only evidence being a picture that there was no way to verify with 100% certainty that the text thread was real. That the picture could have been photo shopped or otherwise edited. I should mention that neither of the phones involved are company owned so I have no way that I know of to access records from the cell provider.
Is it possible that I am missing some avenue that could be explored to make this verification? I really don't see how it could be done without the assistance of the cell provider and with the phones not belonging to the company I doubt I would be able to get any information from a carrier.
@Dashrender said in SIP wireless phone's on FreePBX system ...:
Looks like the W80DM/W80B are only different by a mode setting.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjjt8Cw9KvpAhVCZM0KHVSLCY0QFjABegQIARAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsupport.yealink.com%2Fforward2download%3Fpath%3DZIjHOJbWuW%2FDFrGTLnGyphshNtpyhFJcLzNUPzFczti22pxVBo1IqAxPAwzS8JNbeQdHRoOZWBxnleU8UqMHndA34NOmQC%2Fa4gKhzUqY03VQpIS0pplusSymbolIfibhNUWtTrGnLb0V5E27UeeKMF7bwamVdkUrxJoeg51v9Yv773qI7wEZto6juv%2Ftc6zAsplusSymbol1QmKdDc&usg=AOvVaw3EzRHeUVCmVysaxByX5y0S
Thanks, I hadn't seen that.
Has anyone used this Grandstream?
https://www.voipsupply.com/grandstream-wp810-portable-wifi-phone
It also looks like Yealink may be trying to address my exact issue with this product:
https://www.yealink.com/news_201.html
but it must be so new that folks aren't carrying it yet. The W80B appear to be available but the W80DM that ties them together not yet.
Our HR department wants to look into getting wireless phone's for our plant emergency response team. I've used Yealink DECT phones for something similar to this but I don't think this will really work for this use case due to the size of the area to be covered. I don't think a single DECT receiver can cover the whole plant and several members of the response team are in different areas of the plant during the day.
We have blanket WiFi coverage throughout the plant. Does anyone know a good SIP phone that has WiFi connectivity and is portable enough to be carried on a belt loop or holster of some type that they could recommend.
Thanks.
@scottalanmiller said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
@JaredBusch said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
@Dashrender said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
@BraswellJay said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
ame appearing on his bank portal as the destination for the payment was not our company name.
Wow - so a failing on both sides, and likely no actual hacking at all.
Umm, no. The vendor has a compromised email account that was being monitored for keywords.
If they let the email system do the encryption (not end to end) then maybe. But if they were truly encrypting the email end to end, getting into the email system would not provide that info.
The email system did do the encryption. We use Office 365 and a handful of users who need it have encryption capability by sending an email with the word "Encrypt" in the subject and the Office 365 system will do the encryption from there. The initial email in the chain of events that we sent to the vendor said to the effect of "click here to get your encrypted document"
@IRJ said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
- Dont give vendor any details about your IT infrastructure, it is their problem not yours. Give them minor details that make sense that are relevant to investigation, but certainly dont reveal any infrastructure to them.
We haven't and they haven't asked. They don't seem to have any internal IT resources and are flying blind a little I think.
- This is most certainly an insider attack or a compromised account. In either situation, you have to assume they havent resolved it yet. Hopefully its a compromised account which is more easily fixed, but if its an insider they may be hard to detect.
Are you saying a compromised account or insider at our vendor or do you think it points to a compromised account/insider on our side?
@JasGot said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
@BraswellJay said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
One other detail is that both of the spoofed domains that were used in the attack were registered through google on the same day approximately 4 weeks ago which would suggest they were anticipating being able to use us and the vendor in a coordinated attack.
Wow! Good work. That's a dedicated scammer. What was his payday? If you don't mind making the story more fun...
Enough to sting but not crippling to us or the vendor involved.
@JasGot said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
@BraswellJay said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
Subsequently and on the same day, the vendor received another email that he thought was from one of our accountants directing him to ACH to a different (bogus) account.
What makes me also think it was a directed phish attack on your vendor, is that you say the vendor received an e-mail regarding another ACH account number on the same day, but you didn't say the message had any indication it was a follow up or correction to the earlier message.
Thanks everyone for the feedback. It does appear it was on the vendor end but it was a more sophisticated attack that did involve us being fooled as well even though the target was our vendor. From our investigation this is what we believe actually happened:
One other detail is that both of the spoofed domains that were used in the attack were registered through google on the same day approximately 4 weeks ago which would suggest they were anticipating being able to use us and the vendor in a coordinated attack.
@JasGot said in Email phishing attempt against one of our vendors was successful ...:
@BraswellJay The phish'd e-mail came from another domain, correct?
That's correct.
Our accounting department just let me know that one of our vendors payments to us was apparently hijacked and sent to an account that was not our own. Here are the facts as I have them so far
Our head of finance sent an encrypted email to the vendor giving them an account of ours to ACH funds to. Vendor states that they did receive this email.
Subsequently and on the same day, the vendor received another email that he thought was from one of our accountants directing him to ACH to a different (bogus) account.
Upon closer inspection we can see that this is a phishing email he received. The from field spoofed our domain by replacing the characters "il" with "ll" in one spot and thus was difficult to spot unless looking closely.
This secondary email, though obviously spoofed, had the correct email signature that we use as a corporate standard for the user that it was impersonating, which gave the email an extra measure of authenticity in the eyes of the vendor.
My question is how likely was this caused by a breach on our network? The thing that is concerning is that the attacker had the correct email signature, though, this could have come from anyone that had ever received an email from us since it is standard what we use. Furthermore from what I have been told (I haven't seen to be able to verify) the phished email was received immediately after the original valid email.
Anything in particular that I should be checking? We are on O365 for our email and so we don't host our own email server.
Had never knew this about one of the founders of Cloudflare ...
Ok, thanks for the feedback.
Would replacing these APs with ubiquiti ac pro devices result in better performance? Would it be reasonable to expect client connections to be faster with an AP that supports AC?
I've got a secondary site that where I have AC Pro AP's so I can test there and see what I am getting at that site with the different access points.
Thanks.
I've been doing some performance testing on our network and I'm seeing what appears to be significant performance degradation on the wireless network vs wired network. I realize that in most if not all cases wireless will not be as performant as wired but what I am seeing seemed much more significant than expected.
Here is iperf results on wireless:
c:\temp\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3.exe -c 192.168.1.158
Connecting to host 192.168.1.158, port 5201
[ 4] local 192.168.1.32 port 54717 connected to 192.168.1.158 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.75 MBytes 73.4 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 8.38 MBytes 70.3 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 8.25 MBytes 69.2 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 7.75 MBytes 65.0 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 7.75 MBytes 64.9 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 6.50 MBytes 54.6 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 7.38 MBytes 61.9 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 7.62 MBytes 64.0 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 7.62 MBytes 63.9 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 7.12 MBytes 59.8 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 77.1 MBytes 64.7 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 77.1 MBytes 64.7 Mbits/sec receiver
iperf Done.
And here is results on wired:
c:\temp\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3.exe -c 192.168.1.158
Connecting to host 192.168.1.158, port 5201
[ 4] local 192.168.1.37 port 56917 connected to 192.168.1.158 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 105 MBytes 879 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 103 MBytes 861 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 102 MBytes 860 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 102 MBytes 855 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 102 MBytes 860 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 102 MBytes 859 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 99.8 MBytes 837 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 100 MBytes 839 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 98.6 MBytes 827 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 104 MBytes 872 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1019 MBytes 855 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1019 MBytes 855 Mbits/sec receiver
iperf Done.
c:\temp\iperf-3.1.3-win64>
Am I wrong in thinking that the difference shouldn't be that great? These results are representative of what I get at all times of day. I had similar results late last Friday when no one else was here so I don't think it is the result of too many users connected.
We're using Cisco Aeronet 2602 access points.