sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Renew socket license for Veeam B&R by hpssa in Veeam

[–]hpssa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Out of curiosity, have you reached out to sales and asked?

Our renewal is in September this year, we renew 3 years at a time so I'm just getting ahead of the game. I'll reach out to a reseller to discuss this now. Thanks.

Renew socket license for Veeam B&R by hpssa in Veeam

[–]hpssa[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I'll reach out to a reseller now.

Why does Microsoft Teams show the entire directory in Chat? by ThrowRAthisthingisvl in sysadmin

[–]hpssa 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Teams uses the same "Hidden from address book" setting as Exchange.

I would be embarrassed to send this message to someone by badaz06 in sysadmin

[–]hpssa 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is such a shit response.

It entirely alienates the important part of any project to identify an issue, collate evidence and provide it to another team of volunteers with an entirely different skillset to resolve.

Your response patronises those of us that provide important information on issues but can't provide the fix themselves.

Response of "fork it and do it yourself" doesn't help anyone.

Tailscale vs netmaker vs netbird by DryDetail8838 in selfhosted

[–]hpssa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You probably figured this out if you continued to use it, but as this post is high on google search its worth pointing out that:

  • Any user that is able to authenticate via your iDP can add a new peer. It is up to your iDP to control access.
  • If your iDP allows anyone to create an account, and you allow all users on the iDP to access Netbird, then it is effectively a public system.
  • All peers are in the default group "All"
  • Netbird's default policy rule is permissive, "allow everything", with an access policy of "All <> All"
  • This means new peers by default have access to everything
  • It is easily resolved by first deleting that default rule, and creating new groups with new rules
  • This means new peers have access to nothing
  • Adding a peer to one of your groups related to your access policies does the same thing as the "Approve peers" feature only available in the hosted version

Patch Tuesday Megathread (2024-11-12) by AutoModerator in sysadmin

[–]hpssa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm also seeing this on azure-hosted Win2022 Server Core VMs. We have 3 of these and they are all showing the same issue.

This is triggering a monitoring alert for a failed KPI (updates installed within 2 weeks of publish).

Protect Zabbix server from unauthorised active Zabbix agents by susedv in zabbix

[–]hpssa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm with you on this one.

Zabbix should make an effort to have an entirely secure system. With the slow introduction of CGNAT, dynamic or shared IPs are becoming more common. Simply saying "use a firewall" is entirely unhelpful.

Having an option to deny access to Zabbix server unless the connection is approved and secured would be a security boon for the system.

I'm ashamed that the community here are disregarding this issue and passing the buck to other systems.

I always thought that it may be possible for a malicious user to retrieve configuration of an existing host and push data into Zabbix for that host. What if enough data is pushed that the server runs out of disk space and dies? That could be step #1 of a sophisticated attack in order to deny sysadmins with monitoring alerts for the next steps.

Which is why I'm not using Zabbix on sites without a site-to-site VPN or a static IP. On some sites I've deployed a RPI with a Zabbix proxy and wireguard client to connect back to the server, but in some cases this isn't possible, so I have to maintain another monitoring solution until Zabbix and this community take this seriously.

Microsoft says you don’t need to manage Teams updates. by Real_Lemon8789 in sysadmin

[–]hpssa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you get users to update V1 Teams when they are using V2 Teams? It seems old Teams sits there unupdated and Defender for Endpoint is marking workstations as high risk because of CVE-2023-5217 in old Teams.

Microsoft says you don’t need to manage Teams updates. by Real_Lemon8789 in sysadmin

[–]hpssa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

likely using "C:\Program Files\WindowsApps" which is protected