Updating this thread. I ended up setting up the squid.conf file with the following config to get it to work.
First, at the top of the localnet lines-
acl localnet src 205.205.205.1/32
Then, I added the only domains that I wanted to provide access to. This whitelisted them.
acl GOOD dstdomain .google.com
acl Good dstdomain .domain.ca
Followed by, the allow and deny lines
http_access allow GOOD
http_access deny all
Finally, "uncommenting" the Safe ports/services for 80 and 443.
@scottalanmiller said in Configure Nginx as Reverse Proxy for ScreenConnect to Enable Lets Encrypt:
Here is a basic, working Nginx conf to use with ScreenConnect.
server { listen 443 ssl default_server; server_name my.site.com; server_tokens off; ssl on; ssl_certificate /etc/letsencrypt/live/my.site.com/fullchain.pem; # managed by Certbot ssl_certificate_key /etc/letsencrypt/live/my.site.com/privkey.pem; # managed by Certbot location / { proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header Host $http_host; proxy_set_header X-NginX-Proxy true; proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:8040; proxy_redirect off; } }This configuration assumes that ScreenConnect is running on the same server as Nginx. If it is not, change 127.0.0.1 to point to the IP address of the SC server, instead.
Less to that than I thought there would be.
@Obsolesce That is true. Wouldn't want to pay the licensing for that if we didn't have to. Also, I hate snowflake scenarios.
Yes, they have a special audio conferencing license for SFB, and now Teams. It is an add-on license that you assign to specific users. Although, based on your use-case, I can't tell if it would be of any real help. Here is more info on it. As others have said over and over, you should look elsewhere.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/skypeforbusiness/audio-conferencing-in-office-365/try-or-purchase-audio-conferencing-in-office-365
@scottalanmiller said in Sales Person Wants Me to Provide Independent Rep With an Email Account:
My second thought is, if having an email account creates a security concern, it is not creating the account that creates the problem, it simply exposes an existing security problem.
Not necessarily security, but accessing features like SFB, OD and Teams. But, as Kelly mentioned, they have Exchange Online P1, which doesn't have any of the other services (different than E1.)
When you price systems on their site, they have options to select for this purpose. Although, I don't know if they charge a service fee or subscription on top of the cost of options they list. This is for a Latitude 7400 2-in-1. More info: https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/help-me-choose/cp/hmc-prodeploy-client-suite
@Kelly said in Sales Person Wants Me to Provide Independent Rep With an Email Account:
One solution would be to just give them an Exchange Online P1 license: https://products.office.com/en-us/exchange/compare-microsoft-exchange-online-plans. This would limit them to just email. That is the technical side of things. I'm with everyone else here, the requestor needs to provide a business justification and upline approval for this.
Don't remember seeing P1. That could be the solution if they really want this.
So, the only thing now, would be if he is accessing a web interface (or similar) on the Windows 10 system from another device, like a smartphone app. Wouldn't that be a EULA issue?
The only thing I can think of doing, as a compromise, would be to create an external mail contact that auto-forwards all mail from our company address to this person's existing external address. The obvious issue is sending mail out wouldn't be from our domain.
@gjacobse That is my first thought. I can't see how this can be done
We have Office 365 and a sales person wants to have some independent rep in Chile have their own mailbox from our company. Aside from the hassle of dealing with some random person in a foreign country, how easy is it to limit functionality/isolate them from the broader environment, if I just give them an E1 license?
Thoughts?
I have a cradlepoint AER2200 setup with an AT&T connection at a location across town at a warehouse that gets occasional use. We were going to be using handheld wireless bar code scanners that needed connection to our ERP server. I created an IPSec tunnel to our main office and used an ACL to only limit the correct ports to the server here. Anyway, the connection has been reliable even though it doesn't get much use.
They were going to move out of that location and I was happy because I was going to use the cradlepoint in the main office as a backup, but more for out-of-band management, than for the whole company. Now we have at least another 6 months at that location, so I might end up getting a new one for here anyway. We'll see.
WTF? People NAT their iDracs?
@black3dynamite said in What Are You Watching Now:
AD ASTRA Official Trailer
Youtube Video
Looks nuts
https://www.netwrix.com/account_lockout_examiner.html I have used this in the past. It is a great help. Sometimes, it is mapped network drives with old credentials.
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Dropbox silently installs new file manager app on users’ systems
Dropbox ambushes its users with a radically different version of its sync app.
Hey Dropbox users, how has Dropbox been for you lately? Major changes are coming to the Dropbox desktop app
Just read about this.
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@wrx7m said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@wrx7m said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@wrx7m said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Slack isn’t worried about Microsoft’s big Teams push
Slack’s CEO compares Microsoft’s Teams bundling to Google+
Microsoft revealed last week that it now has more than 13 million people using its Microsoft Teams chat software, a milestone that means the app has overtaken Slack.It's hard not to agree. Actual engagement is the only thing that matters.
Actually, it's businesses being willing to pay for the service is all that matters.
It’s not something you pay extra for since it’s bundled with O365.
You are.
If you want Slack, it's not because you also want Google Sheets or Zimbra email with XYZ. It's because you want Slack because of what business needs it covers.
Slack is $6-$12 per user per month.
If you just want MS Teams (which is a legit need by the way), too bad, you also have to pay for other stuff you may or may not need or use.
MS Teams will cost you $5, which is cheaper than Slack, which does NOT include Office or Office Suite, but does include Exchange... whether or not you need it. To get Office, it's a minimum of $12.50 for Business Premium (< 300 users). Otherwise, you're buying enterprise O365 licenses which just goes up.
We switched from SFB/Teams to slack plus. Waste of money IMO. I didn't like either of them because I don't like chat for work.
I like it because chatting via email is dumb. Email is really abused and extremely inefficient for most of what it's typically used for within most organisations.
True. However, if you are the only person doing all of IT for 100 users and don't have a ticketing system, chat is an interruption and the presumption is that it is an instant response. No way can I instantly respond based on my workload.
That isn't why companies get teams or slack. Totally incorrect use case for chat. It's a collaboration tool, not a customer/user support tool.
Right. But then that is all they use for communication. At least, here, that is the case.
It works well where I am. The ticketing system and service desk is for support, slack is for collaboration and such.
In your case, you'd probably not use it much unless you are working on designing an IT solution with another department or other IT team members.
Yeah. So, that is why I don't want to use it. People want to use it for instant messaging when they have a question about some random shit like, my screen sometimes turns off and I have to press the power button to turn it on again.
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@wrx7m said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@wrx7m said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Slack isn’t worried about Microsoft’s big Teams push
Slack’s CEO compares Microsoft’s Teams bundling to Google+
Microsoft revealed last week that it now has more than 13 million people using its Microsoft Teams chat software, a milestone that means the app has overtaken Slack.It's hard not to agree. Actual engagement is the only thing that matters.
Actually, it's businesses being willing to pay for the service is all that matters.
It’s not something you pay extra for since it’s bundled with O365.
You are.
If you want Slack, it's not because you also want Google Sheets or Zimbra email with XYZ. It's because you want Slack because of what business needs it covers.
Slack is $6-$12 per user per month.
If you just want MS Teams (which is a legit need by the way), too bad, you also have to pay for other stuff you may or may not need or use.
MS Teams will cost you $5, which is cheaper than Slack, which does NOT include Office or Office Suite, but does include Exchange... whether or not you need it. To get Office, it's a minimum of $12.50 for Business Premium (< 300 users). Otherwise, you're buying enterprise O365 licenses which just goes up.
We switched from SFB/Teams to slack plus. Waste of money IMO. I didn't like either of them because I don't like chat for work.
I like it because chatting via email is dumb. Email is really abused and extremely inefficient for most of what it's typically used for within most organisations.
True. However, if you are the only person doing all of IT for 100 users and don't have a ticketing system, chat is an interruption and the presumption is that it is an instant response. No way can I instantly respond based on my workload.
That isn't why companies get teams or slack. Totally incorrect use case for chat. It's a collaboration tool, not a customer/user support tool.
Right. But then that is all they use for communication. At least, here, that is the case.
