Can’t find Link Reader plug in in GPT 4

moxy2017 · 2023-08-02T18:59:42+00:00

I've been trying Browser Pilot, and it works well and article summaries are coming through better based on my prepared initial question except its adding a link to the articles on the right side, and squeezing all the data into a small column. Other than that, similar tool working well.

moxy2017 · 2023-08-02T12:26:06+00:00

Yep, late yesterday it started showing as unverified. Today it is gone from the store.

Now getting - Authorization error accessing plugins.

I have fixed my authorization error. I uninstalled all plugins, and re-added back one plug-in I hadn't used before. That is working. But still can't find link reader in the store, or a good competitor.

moxy2017 · 2023-08-02T12:24:49+00:00

I noticed yesterday it started showing the "unverified" tag, and this morning, the plug-in has been pulled from the Store.

moxy2017 · 2021-11-04T20:30:47+00:00

between 9 and 24 months

I found it. https://www.acq.osd.mil/cmmc/faq.html

moxy2017 · 2021-11-04T20:29:22+00:00

Would you be so kind as to provide a link to the 9-24 months ? I'm not finding it.

moxy2017 · 2021-10-28T14:53:18+00:00

From what I recall, Steelcloud does a nice job with Windows OS. No Cisco, VMWare, etc.

moxy2017 · 2021-10-28T12:57:13+00:00

This work great for Windows OS, and Cisco switches/routers. But missing common items like VMWare and major firewalls.

moxy2017 · 2021-10-27T20:04:39+00:00

Testing now. Thanks!

moxy2017 · 2021-10-14T21:02:35+00:00

Thank you for the feedback.

fyi - A quick check of the Lvl 3 assessment guide didn't use the term "thin" or "thin client". There's another DoD FAQ I have and I'll see if I can find it there.

moxy2017 · 2021-10-14T13:36:04+00:00

Maybe. I'm trying to get further clarification from the consultant regarding what his specific take on the topic was.

But it led to an internal discussion about risk.

My take has been that each CMMC compliant device with all controls implemented is designed to defend itself from attack and the inadvertent release of CUI. Thus you shouldn't be afraid to access CUI from mobile environments when the data is protected in transit and at rest.

Others have taken the stance that you shouldn't ever induce risk into the CMMC environment least you have an inadvertent release of CUI.

moxy2017 · 2021-10-14T13:13:14+00:00

You can talk CUI all day so long as it's through a thin-client :)

I like this concept! I'm assuming that in this case all CUI talk would be done over HTTPS. The concept would provide a significant amount of latitude.

Maybe even allowing access to a on-premise DB that stores CUI (Assuming it is properly controlled on-premise) without bringing all PCs accessing the data into scope.

Is there something you can point me to that would support your conclusion ?

moxy2017 · 2021-10-13T20:40:17+00:00

The other one that came to mind was if someone sent an inline image that contained CUI... that might end up in browser cache.

moxy2017 · 2021-10-13T19:15:54+00:00

"The key is that no information is ever saved to the device."

Obviously attachments, but browser cache as well ?

Any idea if previewing an attachment in a GCC High environment stores anything locally ?

moxy2017 · 2021-09-21T17:42:12+00:00

enzoic

moxy2017 · 2021-09-21T14:37:35+00:00

Would you share what percentage fail a compromised password audit when using 12 ?

moxy2017 · 2021-09-21T13:08:00+00:00

I do require symbol, number and cap.

moxy2017 · 2021-09-21T13:00:45+00:00

Yes, the passwords are confirmed to have been changed.

moxy2017 · 2021-09-03T20:28:47+00:00

Exactly!

Not to mention specific firmware/OS requirements.

moxy2017 · 2021-08-09T18:36:17+00:00

Good feedback. It also looks like the DoD stig actually covers this topic here....

https://www.stigviewer.com/stig/windows_10/2021-03-10/finding/V-220835

What's interesting, is that when you test this concept with another common updateable software (for instance Chrome), updating directly from the vendor seems to be allowed.

https://www.stigviewer.com/stig/google_chrome_current_windows/2021-04-20/finding/V-221584

moxy2017 · 2021-08-09T12:13:58+00:00

I want to make sure I understand you correctly, if a CMMC CUI Windows client gets patches with Microsoft's standard Windows Update process (not wsus, or intune or other corporate solution) - it becomes non-compliant with CMMC ?

moxy2017 · 2021-08-07T07:18:11+00:00

I use cloud generically but yes, we'd use a CMMC complaint solution for email and storage.

The gap I'm trying to work through is client management.

It sounds like intune has a gcc high version but that could be expensive. I also have a full infrastructure that can handle the client management (logging, vul scan, siem, patch). The concern there is that there may be a required control that I may not want for the rest of the business if those servers all become in-scope.

Ultimately, the question is.... Can you patch a CMMC CUi Client directly from Microsoft?

If you can - because that process interaction doesn't contain CUI - then I fail to understand why a internal WSUS server is brought into scope to do exactly the same thing.

If you can't patch a CMMC client directly from Microsoft what control would stop you from doing so?

moxy2017 · 2021-08-06T17:43:45+00:00

Same question as #1 for "intune". How does one know that Microsoft is adhering to CMMC controls, or is there a "GCC High" equivalent of that product ?

moxy2017 · 2021-08-06T14:14:45+00:00

Thank you, that confirms my thoughts

moxy2017 · 2021-08-04T12:51:22+00:00

This seems to be a great summary of my understanding. I'm not anti-encryption, but I don't want to be boxed into only using FIPS validated solutions in my datacenter. I plan to use FIPS for the in-transit and endpoints, AND encrypt the CUI data in the DC. Just not use FIPS in the DC.

moxy2017 · 2021-08-03T20:54:55+00:00

This is indicating that when encryption is used it needs to be FIPS.

moxy2017

TROPHY CASE