ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Topics
    2. dave247
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 89
    • Posts 974
    • Groups 0

    Posts

    Recent Best Controversial
    • Question about server licensing affected by adding multiple networks in a domain?

      Say I have one Windows domain with some DC's serving up AD and DNS, and all of my servers, computers and other devices are all on one flat network. If I wanted to move things to different networks like servers on a management network, computers and phones on another, etc, does this impact the Microsoft licensing I choose? Would I need to purchase additional licenses for the multiple networks under one domain -or something to that effect? I know server licensing is core based but is there something with server CALs or anything?

      I plan to do some more research on my own but I'm currently on the road. I just wanted to ask here to see if I could get some quick input/food for thought on this, if it's even a potential concern.

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.

      @Obsolesce said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      IT Admineer

      LMAO that is good..

      posted in IT Careers
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.

      @scottalanmiller said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      @dave247 said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      @Dashrender said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      @dave247 said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      I'm actually dealing with this right now. I was asked by my boss to come up with a better job title for myself since I am basically a system administrator, network administrator, server administrator, IT manager, among other things.

      I think job titles are a good thing simply as a starting point descriptor of what a person's job role is. It shouldn't determine pay as much as all the line items that are listed in your actual job description.

      That said, I've landed on IT Administrator since it seems to encompass everything and sounds better than "IT Generalist".

      Are you actually a manager? as in you have direct reports that you manage?

      What kind of reports are you referring to? I manage various things in IT, like some reports, vendors, some credit card statements & things..

      Direct report = employee that reports directly to you that you can hire and fire.

      oh no, I can not fire anyone. However, I have indirectly caused people to get fired, but that's another story..

      posted in IT Careers
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.

      @scottalanmiller said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      @dave247 said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      That said, I've landed on IT Administrator since it seems to encompass everything and sounds better than "IT Generalist".

      That's pretty good. It's generic but gets the point across. Generalist is linguistically better because, for example, you likely do some engineering somewhere, not exclusively administration (engineers build, administrators operate.) But it's so general that people get it.

      Or maybe I should go with "Lord of IT" instead.

      posted in IT Careers
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.

      @Dashrender said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      @dave247 said in Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.:

      I'm actually dealing with this right now. I was asked by my boss to come up with a better job title for myself since I am basically a system administrator, network administrator, server administrator, IT manager, among other things.

      I think job titles are a good thing simply as a starting point descriptor of what a person's job role is. It shouldn't determine pay as much as all the line items that are listed in your actual job description.

      That said, I've landed on IT Administrator since it seems to encompass everything and sounds better than "IT Generalist".

      Are you actually a manager? as in you have direct reports that you manage?

      What kind of reports are you referring to? I manage various things in IT, like some reports, vendors, some credit card statements & things..

      posted in IT Careers
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why Job Titles Matter, and Don't.

      I'm actually dealing with this right now. I was asked by my boss to come up with a better job title for myself since I am basically a system administrator, network administrator, server administrator, IT manager, among other things.

      I think job titles are a good thing simply as a starting point descriptor of what a person's job role is. It shouldn't determine pay as much as all the line items that are listed in your actual job description. Of course, there are issues with a job title if you are someone with a ton of roles -- things that would be multiple roles at a bigger company, for example.

      That said, I've landed on IT Administrator since it seems to encompass everything and sounds better than "IT Generalist".

      posted in IT Careers
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: External drive letters changing

      @CCWTech said in External drive letters changing:

      I have a server with only 2 USB ports. OS is Windows Server 2016 STD.

      Since I need more than that to plug in external usb drives I purchased a USB powered hub.

      It's been working fine for a long time, however just recently after a reboot the drive letters are changing from what they are manually assigned in Disk Management and even the name of the volume is changing.

      I have read about clearing the drive attributes in diskpart and also the possibility of the server now detecting the USB hub as a new device each time.

      Has anyone worked on this issue before and what did you do to resolve it?

      Are you properly ejecting the USB drives before taking them out? I think sometimes they don't fully clear and then you have a letter conflict. I'm not 100% sure on this though..

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • I just thoroughly helped someone solve their problem on Spiceworks

      And I wasn't a massive douche-bag about it.

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup

      @JaredBusch said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @dave247 said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @JaredBusch said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @dave247 said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @Dashrender said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @dave247 said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      Why would I want to use this when I already have an SSL cert on Exchange?

      Because when it's time to renew, you can renew for free.

      How is it free? Is there a public CA? I don't get what the catch is. I currently use a DigiCert certificate..

      What part of Let's Encrypt have you never heard of?

      I've literally never heard of it before now, hehe...

      0_1540940919137_eb142db1-8e9a-4733-8a13-2b34a5ffcea1-image.png

      I'm reading up on it now..

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup

      @JaredBusch said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @dave247 said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @Dashrender said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @dave247 said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      Why would I want to use this when I already have an SSL cert on Exchange?

      Because when it's time to renew, you can renew for free.

      How is it free? Is there a public CA? I don't get what the catch is. I currently use a DigiCert certificate..

      What part of Let's Encrypt have you never heard of?

      I've literally never heard of it before now, hehe...

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup

      @Dashrender said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      @dave247 said in Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup:

      Why would I want to use this when I already have an SSL cert on Exchange?

      Because when it's time to renew, you can renew for free.

      How is it free? Is there a public CA? I don't get what the catch is. I currently use a DigiCert certificate..

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Exchange 2016 Let's Encrypt Setup

      Why would I want to use this when I already have an SSL cert on Exchange?

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market

      @scottalanmiller said in Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market:

      @dave247 said in Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market:

      @scottalanmiller said in Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market:

      @dave247 said in Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market:

      If you ARE supporting NGFW and opposing the use of UTMs, I will just say that my current SonicWall model is specifically listed as a NGFW (though you have argued with me in the past about it actually being a UTM). Also, the Sophos XG product that I originally posted about is also an NGFW. I assume you will respond by saying that they just stopped calling them UTMs and are now calling them NGFW, so if that's the case, can you provide some list of products or features that you would use to distinguish a UTM from a NGFW?

      NGFW is deep packet inspection (high layers than the L3 and L4 of traditional shallow packet inspection firewalls), but not features like content filtering, anti-virus, IDS, etc.

      I would put it as UTM is "general purpose applications running on a router as if it were a server." That's the key differentiation. To be a UTM, you have to treat your router hardware like basically a general purpose server running traditional server workloads (AV, Content Filtering, Proxy, IDS, etc.) on it.

      ok, that helps clarify then. In my case, our current appliance is being used as both NGFW and UTM. The product we are looking at would be about the same, but do a better job in different areas.

      Right, so basically these days, any good UTM will be based on NGFW as its starting point. SonicWall, Sophos, Palo Alto should all be NGFW + UTM.

      The NGFW I'm fully in support of when it makes sense (which is decently often), but the UTM pieces I would much rather see elsewhere (if at all), meaning running on the server infrastructure.

      (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market

      @scottalanmiller said in Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market:

      @dave247 said in Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market:

      If you ARE supporting NGFW and opposing the use of UTMs, I will just say that my current SonicWall model is specifically listed as a NGFW (though you have argued with me in the past about it actually being a UTM). Also, the Sophos XG product that I originally posted about is also an NGFW. I assume you will respond by saying that they just stopped calling them UTMs and are now calling them NGFW, so if that's the case, can you provide some list of products or features that you would use to distinguish a UTM from a NGFW?

      NGFW is deep packet inspection (high layers than the L3 and L4 of traditional shallow packet inspection firewalls), but not features like content filtering, anti-virus, IDS, etc.

      I would put it as UTM is "general purpose applications running on a router as if it were a server." That's the key differentiation. To be a UTM, you have to treat your router hardware like basically a general purpose server running traditional server workloads (AV, Content Filtering, Proxy, IDS, etc.) on it.

      ok, that helps clarify then. In my case, our current appliance is being used as both NGFW and UTM. The product we are looking at would be about the same, but do a better job in different areas.

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market

      @scottalanmiller said in Why I See UTMs As Generally Bad in the Current Market:

      NGFW has trumped UTM in the hyper of "what's current" for network edge security. NGFW are simpler, more of an evolutionary advancement of our more traditional firewalls, and make far more sense as they are both more effective (generally) than UTMs, and follow standard IT concepts of how to approach services on the network.

      I am thrown off by this. Are you supporting the use of "next generation firewalls" over the use of UTMs? I mean, I read through this twice now and that's what I am taking away from this paragraph. I skimmed through the comments and it sounds like people are saying that NGFW and UTMs are about the same thing -which I can agree with since the various security products over the years would naturally fall into different places across the security appliance spectrum (evolve), some being more similar/related than others. Your one paragraph here kind of separates the two for a moment, with the NGFW far better than the UTM, but I would think that you'd consider both bad on the basis that they are both things that group security roles (don't keep things separate).

      If you ARE supporting NGFW and opposing the use of UTMs, I will just say that my current SonicWall model is specifically listed as a NGFW (though you have argued with me in the past about it actually being a UTM). Also, the Sophos XG product that I originally posted about is also an NGFW. I assume you will respond by saying that they just stopped calling them UTMs and are now calling them NGFW, so if that's the case, can you provide some list of products or features that you would use to distinguish a UTM from a NGFW?

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • RE: Why Are UTMs Not Recommended Generally

      @scottalanmiller said in Why Are UTMs Not Recommended Generally:

      @dave247 said in Why Are UTMs Not Recommended Generally:

      It seems like you are stuck in the past with how to do things and anything that presents itself as a new way of doing things, you throw a fit about. I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, but I don't think you are being very reasonable with how apposed you are being to the concept of a UTM.

      So let me ask you, do you feel that Windows SBS server, where all functions are crammed into a single device rather than being separated out into individual VMs, is smart? Because that was a big trend fifteen years ago, make it "simple" for IT shops that "didn't get it" and it was crap. Performance was crap, stability was crap, everyone who was "stuck in the old ways" laughed at them for being caught up in marketing and hype and not thinking through what they were doing, and eventually the model showed to be so ridiculous that even MS discontinued it.

      UTMs require you to do things in a fundamentally unreliable and expensive way. Router hardware is not as reliable, cheap, or performant as your server infrastructure. But it makes loads of money for the VARs and networking companies.

      What you see as "stuck in the old ways", we see as "understanding how it works." UTMs aren't a new idea, they are just new on the market. It's a new way to trick people into spending too much (thanks to security theater and security being too confusing for most shops) with by fancy terms and marketing blitzes and hoping that people buying them don't know the history or realize that all of that functionality is something we've had access to, and been doing better for a long time.

      Remember, UTMs aren't new, thinking that UTMs are a good idea is new. That's a huge difference.

      It's one of the current "buzz words" in IT. Like SAN was ten years ago. Took a few years of fighting, now everyone knows how ridiculous, costly, and risky that trend was. But for many years there, those of us pushing hyperconvergence (the "old" way) were laughed at for not doing what was "new", which neither thing was new.

      Then hyperconvergence got the marketing and now it is seen as "new", even though we were pushing it before SANs were popular.

      You see UTMs as new. We see them as a bad idea that is very old.

      You say UTMs are new here but in another spot you say they aren't new. I'm not surprised. I've read through hundreds of your posts and seen various spots where you contradict yourself. You once argued with me for hours about a router and a firewall being the exact same thing. You spew out vast amount of information in the form of debating and arguing about IT stuff but what it really boils down to is that you are splitting hairs about various IT concepts.

      I'm not sure if you do this "for the good of the IT community" or if you're doing it to bolster your own ego. Ether way, you can't seem to have a simple discussion without unpacking a torrent of paragraphs and fragmenting discussion threads in some sort of frighting Scott Alan Miller battle-dance, where you come out the victor because your opponent is forced to yield due to shier exhaustion from all the reading and typing.

      I truly understand what you are saying and where you are coming from with a lot of this stuff, but you are just tireless with the discussion.

      I'm out.

      posted in IT Discussion
      dave247D
      dave247
    • 1 / 1