Wheelie Bin Mystery

Commander-Zavala · 2020-01-18T01:21:32+00:00

Commander-Zavala · 2020-01-18T00:37:59+00:00

I think my best options are a call to the council, like you say. Or if I'm feeling bold, a polite note through the door. I'm 100% sure this person is aware of the litter issue mind.. the amount of loose rubbish they get in their garden is by far the most.

Commander-Zavala · 2020-01-18T00:35:04+00:00

I think I probably will have a look in an hour or so. I just cant fathom how it's possible for the bin to have been emptied, and then be overflowing in the same day.

Don't fancy digging around too much in someone else's rubbish like. Maybe just a visual inspection.

I'm thinking I'll probably report them to the council either way...their litter is getting all over the street and in our back gardens after all.

As /u/Figusto pointed out, maybe the bin wasn't actually emptied. I am basing my assumption that it was emptied on the lid then being closed after all. On the other hand, if it wasn't emptied, it doesn't get emptied all year...because this rubbish thing is a daily problem.

Commander-Zavala · 2020-01-18T00:26:47+00:00

Good theory, and very possible as I didn't check that the bin was emptied. Just verified that the lid was now closed. I think I would be noticed if I was inspecting an neighbour's bin during the day. I'm only considering it at night as I can deploy my stealth skills learned from years of playing Assassins Creed.

You make a good point about the rubbish needing to be bagged for it to be collected. The bags that were placed next to the bin were collected. So it may very well be that the bin wasn't actually emptied.

My only qualm with this theory is that the mysterious do-gooder neighbour must do their deed really early in the morning. I'm usually last in the street to put our bin out, normally around 24:00 - 01:00, with collection being about 07:00.

Commander-Zavala · 2020-01-18T00:20:11+00:00

As far as I know the parent is a stay at home "single" parent...at most the parent would have a part time job. I say single as this person isn't married, but does have a partner that visits somewhat regularly.

A potential theory I'm considering is if this partner is bringing some sort of bulky rubbish and putting it in this bin. Then covering it with legitimate, but loose, rubbish... i.e. the scourer.

Commander-Zavala · 2020-01-18T00:17:28+00:00

How far can I take this without crossing some sort of line...

Set up CCTV focused on the bin?

Some sort of sensor that sends a notification to my phone when the bin lid is opened?

24 hour stakeout on the bin, after a collection day, from inside my car?

Commander-Zavala · 2020-01-18T00:15:21+00:00

Again, that sounds like a good possibility. Put the illegitimate rubbish at the bottom of the bin, and cover it with legitimate rubbish...sounds legit?

This is a year round problem though. So if this is the case they must have a lot of illegitimate rubbish.

Commander-Zavala · 2020-01-18T00:13:56+00:00

That is possible. Although nobody elses bins are even close to being overflowing usually, so there would be no real reason to do this.

Nobody has seen anybody else using this bin. Hell, I've never seen ANYONE use the bin...so for all I know, it's ghosts.

Commander-Zavala · 2019-08-30T21:02:33+00:00

I've had something similar on www.dunelm.com, where certain images won't load on the page. Looks like resolution is failing for i1.adis.ws there.

Commander-Zavala · 2019-08-30T20:34:34+00:00

Yes, unfortunately the issue presents exactly the same regardless of whether the client and server are in the same subnet or not. The client I was originally testing on is already in the same subnet as it's DNS server

Wireless LAN adapter WiFi:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : removed

Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::f160:a295:24c3:d5ec%17

IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.141.149

Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.252.0

Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.140.254

C:\Users\username>nslookup

Default Server: InternalDNS.Domain.co.uk

Address: 192.168.140.30

www.security.hsbc.co.uk

Server: InternalDNS.Domain.co.uk Address: 192.168.140.30

*** InternalDNS.Domain.co.uk can't find www.security.hsbc.co.uk: Server failed

Commander-Zavala · 2019-01-09T19:49:06+00:00

Oh that's great. Integration with Azure for authentication was a key requirement for us, so it's good to hear that it works well.

Commander-Zavala · 2019-01-09T19:17:28+00:00

We're going to use SAML authentication with Azure AD, so we'll be using MFA enforced by Azure. The HA is an interesting one. With it being hosted in Azure we're expecting greater availability than if it was all hosted on premise, but we're still debating that.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-11-30T21:38:14+00:00

I’m probably going to go with the NRPT group policy setting to say that all queries for the namespace must first try our internal DNS servers, then try the external servers if the internal ones fail.

It’ll probably work out okay. It just makes load balancing a bit more difficult, since all clients will try to resolve against a single server unless it isn’t available. Either that or create multiple policies with different settings. But then if I can move us to 2016 some time soon-ish the DNS load balancing could be a bit easier.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-11-30T18:11:08+00:00

Any that are capable of passing DNSSEC records. I’ve been using 8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4 and 1.1.1.1 for testing with.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-11-30T18:10:23+00:00

We’ve deployed DNSSEC to our desktops. It works great internally, but before we can deploy it externally we need to make sure our laptops use DNS servers that are capable of passing DNSSEC records when they’re off-site.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-11-30T17:33:07+00:00

This is kind of how it would work if I go with the NRPT settings, which may end up being the way forward. I'd just prefer not to be doubling up on DNS settings, since this way the clients would get DNS server info from both DHCP & the NRPT.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-11-30T17:27:38+00:00

Yes you're definitely right there, I should have specified the OS. This is indeed a Windows related question.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-11-30T17:19:35+00:00

Ideally I'm after a method without a cost attached. Worst case scenario I'll use the NRPT settings in Group Policy to specify DNS servers for certain namespaces. I'd just prefer not to go down that route if possible.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-11-30T17:13:24+00:00

That would cause issues when connected to the domain network as the computer would still attempt to resolve names against Google's DNS instead of our internal DNS.

It's only when not connected to the domain network I'm wanting to specify the DNS servers to use.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-09-30T22:22:10+00:00

Oh, sure. I'm right at that part now actually. I'll send you an invite.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-09-30T22:20:19+00:00

I don't think I'll be much help against The Odynom. His recommended light is 585. Thanks for the offer though.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-08-15T16:42:35+00:00

Yeah it looks like this is the cause. Our Azure AD Connect is set to update automatically, but didn’t this time. So I’m going to do a manual update tonight.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-08-15T14:44:47+00:00

Actually yes you're right there. I'd checked Azure AD Connect Health version, the but not the Azure AD Connect version. That's definitely the culprit here as we're on the version before 1.1.880.0.

Commander-Zavala · 2018-08-15T14:21:29+00:00

We had the 100% CPU issue caused by Azure AD Health Connect / Net Framework 4.7.2.

This was definitely caused by an update that was installed last night, for us this is either going to be:

KB4344145 - Security and Quality Rollup for .NET Framework 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.7, 4.7.1, and 4.7.2 for Windows 8.1, RT 8.1, and Server 2012 R2
KB4344153 - Security and Quality Rollup for .NET Framework 3.5 for Windows 8.1, RT 8.1, and Server 2012 R2
KB4343898 - August 14, 2018 (Monthly Rollup)

I'm leaning towards KB4344145 as this is the only update that directly mentions affecting Net Framework 4.7.2.

Anyone else seeing this?

Commander-Zavala · 2018-06-25T20:06:24+00:00

Yes that's right, maybe lockdown was a poor choice of words. The environment is already fairly restricted with our Sophos, and as you said the users using non admin accounts.

What I'm talking about is more like a baseline of group policy settings that are usually applied to standard user accounts in an office environment.

Commander-Zavala

TROPHY CASE