@Obsolesce said in What the world? No user backup script:

Does the company want user device data backups or do they want to push network shares or one/Googledrive?

Were they already under the impression user device data was already backed up?

Do you redirect the documents folder?

Group policy, Etc...

Depends on a lot.

yep.. all of that and more.

In this day and age - and they have data that matters on the endpoint?

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

@Dashrender One has 2 Server 2019 VMs running databases and the other has 3 Fedora30 VMs.

Do you know why they have two servers instead of one?

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

@Dashrender said in AzureAD and shares:

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

My best option IMO is to spin up 3 new VMs - 2 AD/DNS and 1 file server.

Where are you planning on hosting this? I have to assume you don't mean to buy two servers, and setup AD/DNS on each of them, plus then setup a file server on one of them as well? That would be hardware overkill for something like this.
So assuming you did go with a single server - then you're down to two VMs - 1 AD/DNS and 1 file server.

Another option would be 1 NAS, and simply map it to everyone's computer.

You mentioned managing local user accounts - do users move around and use other people's computers? or are they mainly only on their own? If they are mostly single use, a NAS is likely the best option. You'll build the users on the NAS and be done with it.

Nothing has to be purchased as there are 2 Hyper-V hosts running and are less than 6 months old.
Users only use 1 machine each. No roaming.

wow - they have two servers already? what are they doing? what is on them workload wise?

@scottalanmiller said in AzureAD and shares:

@Dashrender said in AzureAD and shares:

@scottalanmiller said in AzureAD and shares:

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

@scottalanmiller said in AzureAD and shares:

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

The more OSS you have, the lower your score will be.

Then it's an anti-audit. I mean it's that easy. If they are specifically penalizing security, that literally makes these guys social engineers / hackers. Instantly, you have a requirement to ban them from the company. Financial regulations actually makes that criminal.

Not to derail this thread, but I deal with this every year. These auditors come in and HAVE to find something "wrong" even though what they find are not actual problems. It just justifies the money spent for the audit. I know there are others on here who deal with these auditors. They know exactly how bad it is.

Right, so you have a criminal activity going on for personal gain. The bank needs to understand that the auditors are being paid to put them at risk, because that's how they get compensated. Doesn't change that it's illegal.

This is clearly totally the wrong mind set for both the auditors and the audited. If anything both should be hoping that they don't find anything.

Auditors do what they are paid to do. If they are paid only to scam people, they will scam them. Only those being audited forcing that to happen can be at fault in a free market.

We don't have a free market - not when you are required to have audits, and often required to have audits by a special list of auditors.

@scottalanmiller said in AzureAD and shares:

@Dashrender said in AzureAD and shares:

Because those who are paying for those audits simply don't know any better

Of course they do, they have IT to advise them. That's why IT's job is to do, and it is managment's job to understand that IT is their rep, and the auditors are the vendor's reps. There is never, ever, ever a situation where management isn't mandated and tasked with understanding who is on their team and who they need to be protected from. If you didn't need that, you'd not even need management!

Sure - that's the way it's "supposed" to work. Sadly - as I already said - once you're an employee - your opinion basically never means anything anymore.

@scottalanmiller said in P2V Windows 2000 on KVM:

So this is ridiculous, but we just found out that it is actually 2003 R2, not 2000. So I assume that this will be way better.

I had a ton of issues getting mine to work - I had to run chkdsk like 15 times before it finally booted... I don't recall what migration tool I used.

@Obsolesce said in AzureAD and shares:

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

I know @Obsolesce uses samba too. How well does this work if the MS users connecting to samba sign in to their PCs with MS accounts instead of local user accounts? Basically, does it work properly with email addresses for usernames? I don't use MS accounts personally and have never tried to connect to a samba share that way.

Where I work now, we're moving to LANless at full speed, and SDP in the meantime and where LANless is more challenging.

SDP?
What is your proposed or already decided solution for normal file storage? (word, etc, type files)

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

My best option IMO is to spin up 3 new VMs - 2 AD/DNS and 1 file server.

Where are you planning on hosting this? I have to assume you don't mean to buy two servers, and setup AD/DNS on each of them, plus then setup a file server on one of them as well? That would be hardware overkill for something like this.
So assuming you did go with a single server - then you're down to two VMs - 1 AD/DNS and 1 file server.

Another option would be 1 NAS, and simply map it to everyone's computer.

You mentioned managing local user accounts - do users move around and use other people's computers? or are they mainly only on their own? If they are mostly single use, a NAS is likely the best option. You'll build the users on the NAS and be done with it.

@scottalanmiller said in AzureAD and shares:

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

I know @Obsolesce uses samba too. How well does this work if the MS users connecting to samba sign in to their PCs with MS accounts instead of local user accounts? Basically, does it work properly with email addresses for usernames? I don't use MS accounts personally and have never tried to connect to a samba share that way.

I thought that they were dropping those weird things for local or AD?

Well - @brandon220 has two choices - use MSA (Microsoft Accounts) or purely local to the machine accounts.

Actually he has a third as long as he has O365.
O365 comes with a lite version of Azure AD. You can join your Win10 machines to it, and users can roam between PCs via this authentication method. No extra cost needed outside the base license for O365.

So now the question becomes - can Samba use usernames like [email protected]? If it can, then there shouldn't be any issue.

@scottalanmiller said in AzureAD and shares:

@brandon220 said in AzureAD and shares:

@Obsolesce Yes. Unbelievable.

Worse, is that someone pays and/or believes them. How could it come to that?

Because those who are paying for those audits simply don't know any better - and the advertising for said auditor is better than anything the local IT group can give.