|
Judge Schnoopy posted:nah doing one unannounced kills productivity, interrupts work, and can cause unnecessary panic. There's no reason to not tell people ahead of time so they can appropriately schedule their work around the drill. They've been announcing the fire drill for like 3 years now, they've been pushing everyone off http as fast as they possibly can. Unless you've been living under a rock, there's no way you couldn't have known browsers are working to kill plain http.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
thebigcow posted:Firefox still lists the login under the warning and fills in if you click on it. Am I missing something, or are people freaking out because it takes an extra mouse click?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Truga posted:They've been announcing the fire drill for like 3 years now, they've been pushing everyone off http as fast as they possibly can. Unless you've been living under a rock, there's no way you couldn't have known browsers are working to kill plain http. End users don't know or care what Firefox is announcing
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:End users don't know or care what Firefox is announcing I don't care about end users though, this is a fuckup of the person hosting the plain text site in tyool 2017.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:"We removed this functionality because we have opinions" is generally not met with resounding applause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:"We removed this functionality because we have opinions" is generally not met with resounding applause. Everything is still functional. No functionality is removed. They are stating: "This login info is being sent in a non-secure fashion" which is correct information and not an opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Everything is still functional. No functionality is removed. Bob Morales posted:Today's fun is Firefox 52 doesn't automatically fill username/passwords on insecure sites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
The more things change the more they stay the same. Im helping with helpdesk type duties. A ticket came in: To: helpdesk Cc: boss, director, vp, other vp, cfo Need to install my printer - self important lady
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Okay, then I misunderstood. From reading this: You have to click on the warning to fill the things in
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Just a random thought that I'd like to bounce off people - which is that Mimecast is not worth putting in front of Office 365 if your only reason for doing it is to improve availability. Since you aren't really adding resiliency in the same way as having multiple servers behind a load balancer, you're just substituting one set of MX records for another, then your best case scenario for availability becomes whatever Mimecast's is. And in the worst case scenario aren't you just doubling your total annual outage duration, assuming both products have the same SLA? o365 filtering hasn't been very good. Mimecast on the other hand has been rock solid. In a company of 350 people where every single user has local admin rights, we've had exactly 0 cryptolockers because of Mimecast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:End users don't know or care what Firefox is announcing Which is why complaining they weren't warned is silly - actually going ahead and doing the thing is the only way to make things change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Didn't chrome already start doing a bunch of certificate related stuff a few months ago?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Didn't chrome already start doing a bunch of certificate related stuff a few months ago?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
A ticket came in: One of our business software suites uses MSCOMCTL.OCX. A client's in house IT called in raging that we had given him a virus, because he ran some security scanner and it said that file was a security risk (probably because it's a goddamn VB6 library that doesn't come with Win10 anymore). He said he had tried to remove it, but then our software wouldn't work anymore, and he is demanding that we fix this IMMEDIATELY. And yes, I did double check, it was their IT person who called.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
A Pinball Wizard posted:A ticket came in: I was about to say is the software from 1998
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is no way to disable this. That's kind of the point. There's two settings hidden away in about :config that will make it act like it did prior, probably only until the next update knowing Mozilla. Also amusingly when we revoked one of our certs but missed a server when pushing out the new one, Chome was fine with it but Firefox actually noticed it was revoked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
duz posted:There's two settings hidden away in about :config that will make it act like it did prior, probably only until the next update knowing Mozilla.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Changing that setting is as good an idea as turning your system clock back because the SSL certificate expired. poo poo, you mean setting my server to 1999 didn't get me 2 decades of SSL?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Changing that setting is as good an idea as turning your system clock back because the SSL certificate expired. I've done this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Changing that setting is as good an idea as turning your system clock back because the SSL certificate expired. I un-ironically did this for a SQL install that was never activated when it was originally installed  I think it was a 2012 install and I was amazed that it worked so easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Changing that setting is as good an idea as turning your system clock back because the SSL certificate expired. Yes, there's a lot of bad things you can do in about :config, that's why they don't want you editing it directly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
And yet there's going to be a huge upswing in these dumbass site owners trying to "educate" their users to go and edit the relevant settings in order to use their sites, rather than fixing the SSL. Remember all those software download pages that had helpful screenshots showing you how to click on the OK buttons to bypass the UAC prompts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
You know, I'd be mad if they made it impossible to enter credentials on non secured sites, but autofill being disabled? It's just so unimportant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Why would you want to set up email on your car? There are HUDs that do this, I can totally see a "luxury" car including it. Of course, if the screen is in the same place that most carputers are, then it is a Darwin waiting to happen. Jewel posted:Because if you tell an average computer user "entering your password here means hackers are probably gonna get it" with a warning box they'll freak out Reminds me of Chrome's bullshit little "This download we don't recognize IS A VIRUS and WILL DESTROY YOUR COMPUTER." from a couple years ago. (False positive? What's that?) Did they ever roll that back?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
sfwarlock posted:Reminds me of Chrome's bullshit little "This download we don't recognize IS A VIRUS and WILL DESTROY YOUR COMPUTER." from a couple years ago. (False positive? What's that?) Did they ever roll that back? At one point there was a wonky definition file for MS security essentials that marked chrome.exe as a virus and deleted it. User solution? Uninstall the virus scanner. (not getting into why they could)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:You know, I'd be mad if they made it impossible to enter credentials on non secured sites, but autofill being disabled? It's just so unimportant. Users were confused. Users put in tickets. Users still don't really understand what it means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Users were confused. Users put in tickets. Users still don't really understand what it means. New thread title?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Knormal posted:They didn't remove any functionality (for once), they just added a warning that hey, this site you're using sucks. Just tell the end users to direct their bitching to admin@unsecuresite.com and the problem will eventually get fixed. The problem will get "fixed" by people saying they only support viewing their site in IE10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Text to speech bruh. I had a coworker that had this for text messages for his phone. Sent him a 5 page text message but it didn't arrive while I was there. Checked with him after work... Coworker: "I hate you. My car would not stop saying the word 'Penis' for 5 blocks." Malek fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
sfwarlock posted:Reminds me of Chrome's bullshit little "This download we don't recognize IS A VIRUS and WILL DESTROY YOUR COMPUTER." from a couple years ago. (False positive? What's that?) Did they ever roll that back? Chrome still does that sometimes. I tried to download and install a driver from HP's website recently and both Chrome and Windows smart screen tried to stop me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Malek posted:I had a coworker that had this for text messages for his phone. Sent him a 5 page text message but it didn't arrive while I was there. I keep imagining your car saying PENIS in that robotic Hawking voice 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Hungry Computer posted:Chrome still does that sometimes. I tried to download and install a driver from HP's website recently and both Chrome and Windows smart screen tried to stop me. Smart screen works!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
oh hey activesync is working now after a 5 hour outage all afternoon, good job helpdesk!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:I keep imagining your car saying PENIS in that robotic Hawking voice How else would you know that your GT is DTF?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
hopefully nobody noticed that google dns blip rn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
All of the first run surface pro 3's that management wanted so desperately (30+ devices) are now suffering catastrophic battery failures, this is on top of the TPM issues that messed up Bitlocker, the Wireless/Bluetooth network adapter failures and the rampant terrifying overheating. Only way to get the batteries replaced is to send them to Microsoft, who don't do the repairs in country (and guess what they are out of warranty isn't that convenient), or to some shady msp, last time we tried that they didn't reseal the device properly and it was the wrong shape which meant it didn't fit in the Gen1 docking station anymore. Most will lose charge within minutes of being undocked, some within seconds. A couple won't even run while docked unless the device is in powersaver mode and the screen brightness is turned down to nothing. The surface pro product line is a total turd for anyone wanting to do anything other than browse the internet/check email. The only good news is it means we aren't looking at SP4's or SurfaceBooks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
i'm really glad I don't have to deal with end user hardware anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:I keep imagining your car saying PENIS in that robotic Hawking voice 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Phrosphor posted:All of the first run surface pro 3's that management wanted so desperately (30+ devices) are now suffering catastrophic battery failures, this is on top of the TPM issues that messed up Bitlocker, the Wireless/Bluetooth network adapter failures and the rampant terrifying overheating. Only way to get the batteries replaced is to send them to Microsoft, who don't do the repairs in country (and guess what they are out of warranty isn't that convenient), or to some shady msp, last time we tried that they didn't reseal the device properly and it was the wrong shape which meant it didn't fit in the Gen1 docking station anymore. Oddly enough the Surface 3 I have is chugging along with pretty daily if light use. Kinda surprised the Pros are being that bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Apart from one SP3 with heating issues we've deployed around a hundred and never had any issues like that. Maybe you are just unlucky?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 08:22
|
|
