...so, I wrote my own!

The major benefit? Building your menu structure is dead easy compared to before. It's all XML based. You can report on your data. Since I am storing the menu selections in generic-named fields, you can imagine how much easier reporting would be compared to having a category called 'Software,' then another attribute called 'Microsoft Office,' etc. Waaay easier, IMHO.

It supports your existing categories too!

In the app:

In the new ticket form:

In the user portal:

Check it out and let me know how it works out for you - - - I need feedback! @Bill-Kindle has tried it, so should you!

http://community.spiceworks.com/plugin/1654

I wanted to post this here if anyone remembers eWoman (Rose) in the community. She and her husband are in financial straits due to her health right now and need some assistance - check out the post here: http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/889146-an-it-pro-in-need-is-a-friend-indeed-ewoman-needs-our-help

If you feel that you can help with any amount $10, $5, $1, whatever...I know it would really be appreciated. If you can't afford it or don't do that sort of thing, just some thoughts or prayers (whatever is your fancy) would be great too.

I know it can feel tacky to post something like this, but trust me, she and her husband really need the help.

Later everyone,
Rob

https://www.avast.com/avast-for-business

Big news - it used to be back in the day, Comodo and Clamwin were your only options for free AV for commercial use - I think even Comodo stopped doing this at some point. The only other contender was MS Security Essentials for up to 10 nodes in an environment.

Now, I see this! I've not tried it yet, but, if you don't get nagged to hell (or asked to register every year on each device), this is indeed great news!

@thanksajdotcom said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@thanksajdotcom said:

@thecreativeone91 said:

@scottalanmiller said:

For for reference, if Staples just uses your name and theirs, checking via Duck Duck Go, your Spiceworks and MangoLassi (and some other) hits that are you and Staples together come right up. You are surviving simply on the fact that they are not looking to see what their employees are saying, not that any effort would not tie it together.

And spiceworks people keep coming here just to see this stuff. Look at how many views these types of your topics get. and someone over on spiceworks posted some screenshots of this thread elsewhere online. Chances of this stuff getting see by an employer get higher and higher each time you do it.

Most of us are trying to help, but obviously there are those that just come here to see the crash and burn.

I appreciate that. I have a really easy time empathizing with others' pain, whether physical, emotional or mental. However, I have a very hard time empathizing with how other people interpret what I say. I'm working on that but it's a real struggle for me.

The most important part is to stop saying it. You have recognized that you can't tell how others will see it. Now, how do you action that knowledge in a good way? You avoid the behaviour until you can determine what is safe or not.

Think about it this way, what if you can't tell if the range top is hot? Do you put your hand on it and get burned sometimes? Or do you stop putting your hand on it at all until you figure out how to determine if it is hot or not?

When it doubt, avoid. Play it safe.

The other part of my problem is my own way of viewing myself. If you ever talked to me in person, I could give a more accurate demonstration, but I'm a world-class liar. I know exactly how to work it so that I can make a person totally believe one thing without actually lying most of the time. The devil is in the details. So the odd part is that, while I'm quite amazing at this, I also detest lying. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious I often are a little too honest. The biggest reason I do this has nothing to do with anyone else, but has to do with the fact that it's a coping mechanism for me. I don't do well keeping stuff bottled up. I'd much rather put everything out there and deal with the consequences than keep whatever it might be bottled up. Now the consequences at times are pretty severe, and most people would think I'm nuts. But to me, dealing with that is STILL easier than the feeling and anxiety I get keeping it bottled up. The trick I need to figure out is just knowing when to release that info/those feelings, etc.

I'm not trying to be a dick by saying this...please keep this in mind.

The problem, though - is that you cause other people anxiety & discomfort by doing this. So what you are accomplishing is projecting your own insecurities and anxiety on other people, forcing them to deal with something that should be handled by yourself & possibly a professional therapist/coach. "If they feel that way, that's their problem." - Sure, but their coping mechanism is either to avoid you altogether or make you feel uncomfortable in return.

People don't want to have to deal with your problems; they have problems and anxieties of their own, why should they cope with yours, too? You don't make it everyone else's responsibility to have to deal with the issues you may have because it makes you feel weird to bottle it up.

You need to find a different way to address this and find an outlet that doesn't negatively impact everyone around you.

We had a user today receive an email with "See enclosed report" in the message body, and a random name as the email subject. Attached was a .dot file which presumably was macro-enabled. One of our users (I have been pushing for removing admin rights and setting application whitelisting for months, but hey, I'm the new guy, so...) clicked into the .dot and got herself infected. Trend Micro caught the residual breadcrumbs but only after being infected.

The next thing it did was it found another machine on the network which had a USB-drive attached and shared and began to encrypt THOSE files as well.

We didn't get a chance to thoroughly analyze what was going on, but it definitely dropped a .VBS in the user's appdata folder and executed that. The interesting thing about the file was that all the variables, objects, functions, etc. were named with a random set of alphanumeric characters, so it LOOKED encrypted, but it wasn't. Presumably to circumnavigate pattern-based detection.

In any case, this rolled right on through our Barracuda Spam Filter - they didn't have the definitions for the infection yet until an hour after we had cleaned up the mess.

The mail content:

Please find latest report attached.

Sharon Blackwell 

Attached file: 263_2567rh.dot

Obviously, the names and filenames are different per each email, but this was the format of the incoming infection this AM.

Just a head's up for everyone - keep any eye out.

Also, guess what I got approved to do starting tomorrow? Application whitelisting and removing admin rights...FINALLY.

That's AWESOME - and congrats!

Now, for a Mangolassi Community request: Make sure you work in the word "Khan" somewhere in the interview, ok?

The key...if you're into functional GPO's (vs. monolithic) is having an effective and meaningful OU structure. Otherwise, half of your time will be creating security filters or specific targeting which can get very confusing very quickly.

The performance impact of processing GPO's in general is negligible, but it does depend on what that GPO is doing (i.e. deploying software in general or printers over slow links? Have a seat and grab a cup of coffee). I would be more concerned if you have slow links at your sites - if this is the case, you need to ensure that you have Sites and Services configured appropriately and a RODC at your remote site to facilitate speedy logins.

Being aware of GPO enforcement (which you should try to avoid) and LSDO ordering will help you tons.

There's really no right or wrong way to deploy GPO's as it is more about what you're doing with them, how they are deploying, and what you're deploying them to.

Personally, my preference is to break my GPO's out to functional objects - i.e. this one is for security, this one is for desktop preferences, this one is for drive mappings, etc.

What the hell, SourceForge? I go to download FileZilla and Vipre kills it because you've packed in a bunch of adware/toolbar stupidness into your downloads again. I thought we talked about this already.

I've been messing around with the home lab and have successfully created an Active Directory domain controller on Linux Ubuntu Server. Has anyone configured a Group Policy Central Store and had it successfully work with RSAT on a Windows client? I've created the PolicyDefinitions folder on my DC sysvol\Policies folder, but when I open up a policy and begin editing it, I get this, one after another...one for each admx file in the PolicyDefinitions folder:

'An appropriate resource file could not be found for file \domain.blah\SysVol\domain.blah\Policies\PolicyDefinitions\blah.admx (error = 2): The system cannot find the file specified.'

Seems like it should be a simple thing - create the language-specific folder ('en-US') and drop the adml files in, but for some reason, something ain't happy...

Anyone have any experience with this?

Yikes! Go big or go home.

Hope all is well...

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@DustinB3403

Yes, I'm invested in this particular topic, pretty much because I decided to finally say something about how I see every thread go here in ML, and it happened to me (again). I was annoyed for myself, but also felt that for other posters they would likely experience the same thing.

I'm discovering that maybe this is not a community for me.

So, to be sure what I'm understanding as the issue, is really that it is me. You are upset that I get invested in topics and have a rather vigorous discussion that you perceive, and maybe are correct, is argumentative and that that takes the topic in a direction that you do not agree with?

Nope.

@DustinB3403

Yes, I'm invested in this particular topic, pretty much because I decided to finally say something about how I see every thread go here in ML, and it happened to me (again). I was annoyed for myself, but also felt that for other posters they would likely experience the same thing.

I'm discovering that maybe this is not a community for me.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@scottalanmiller

Holy crap, yes.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.

You do realise that we forked your topic hours ago and this is not it any longer, right?

Jesus Scott, seriously.

Then I am confused. You said that we didn't fork. But we did, multiple times and your original topic died with just twelve posts.

I forked it the moment that I had a chance. No other mod saw it in the interim. Even when I did fork it, it wasn't fast enough and people were cross posting for a bit, and we got that cleaned up to.

You did, but not without flak for wanting it forked and how conversation should flow organically...I mean it wasn't like it was done immediately simply because I requested it.

Dude. You guys figure out what works, or don't. I don't care. I'm probably not going to respond here again, which is saying a lot. I'm a pretty tolerant and laid back guy, but this...this was not worth my time.

@scottalanmiller

Holy crap, yes.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.

You do realise that we forked your topic hours ago and this is not it any longer, right?

Jesus Scott, seriously.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.

What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.

But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.

Then remove the capability to title your posts.

But then people would not know that we are having a topic right now specifically about when things are or are not derailments.

That makes no sense Scott, I'm sorry.

Then why have groups or categories here? By your logic, everything should be free-form and not have a topic at all.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.

What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.

But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.

Then remove the capability to title your posts.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.

Well there are two possible ways for it to go. Either we are railroading into submission by just accepting the OP opinion without discussion. Or if we discussion the opposing point we get told we are railroading people into submission.

Isn't the complaint then that I'm not just letting you dictate but am proposing the counter argument? If I didn't, wouldn't you be the one railroading rather than me (which is what you are implying.)

But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.

Now we're having this conversation that's taken up a good portion of my morning because you can't or won't understand that some people think differently than you and might want to use the community differently than you - and you need them to explain it to you as if we're the oddballs.

@DustinB3403 said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in [Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork](/topic/9098/ransomware-conversation-derailment-

As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen.

So only a seasoned user should create new topics then as they know when a new topic should be created.

Everyone else is still discussing the original thread, but with new details.

This is after it was forked - to your point, it's probably due to how things are moderated. If a person can't determine when they should start a new thread, the moderator should do it before it gets too far down the road.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.

So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?

How about I ask you?

Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?

Here are the first three comments.

So which one do you feel was off topic? If the post was purely information and did not warrant further discussion, all three are "off topic" but that measure.

One is joking-ish. One is stating that he avoided it. One was raising the issue of users not caring and being annoyed by the resulting situation.

All three are organically following the topic, none are in a response to a question or needed. All three would result in you wanting to unsub from the topic as they don't provide value back to the OP given that there is no question to answer.

So by that measure, I'd say every response was off topic. But I don't agree with that assessment.

Of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The thing is - and I can't believe I'm writing this - is if you are creating a new point that warrants additional discussion that is not directly related to the original topic at hand, it should be forked to a new topic. As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen, and so I commented, politely, to please start a new one, and everyone ignored that and kept on going anyway.

At the end of the day guys, the way the topics flow is a hot mess.

It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.

What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.

It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.

So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?

How about I ask you?

Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?