is the security breach that someone ran a vulnerability scanner against their public ip
|
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 14:40 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 01:32 |
|
Oh no! Their PC is broadcasting an IP address!
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 15:42 |
So is every other machine that's connected to the internet!
|
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 15:59 |
|
D. Ebdrup posted:So is every other machine that's connected to the internet! What if they find out my MAC? You can't even change it!
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 16:01 |
|
A 2:30am phone call came in. Electric company was in house doing some maintenance that was to have "no impact". What really happened was that they somehow managed to completely take down an entire datacenter with redundant power, centrifugal UPS, and redundant generators. I got back to bed a few minutes before daylight at least.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 17:25 |
|
Alighieri posted:Got a client with a weird issue on their juniper network equipment. We inform clients on what ports need to be forwarded for our software and leave it up to their network people to make the changes on their end. For some reason this one clients Juniper is replacing the public IP on inbound packets with the gateways IP and changing the source to say the gateway as well (10.10.1.1). If I telnet to a tcp port that is forwarded to the server with our software traces show the source as the gateway and SIP packets to the server have the public IP changed in the to,from,c= etc.. so it all shows 10.10.1.1. I have seen Junipers mangle shoretel/voip traffic with application layer gateways that are enabled by default. Since you mentioned SIP that might be something worth looking into
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 20:06 |
|
AlexDeGruven posted:A 2:30am phone call came in. I think you work for my company! I walked in at 11 to everything still on fire.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 22:53 |
|
Still seeing some fallout in my email as late as this afternoon, but nothing in my space.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 22:57 |
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:"For clarity in communications and to enhance rapid response ability to issues, we ask users to refrain from using jargon and abbreviations in tickets, as not all terms are universal." Real quote from a customer: "When I cut on the box system 10 won't Office up"
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 07:33 |
|
AlexDeGruven posted:A 2:30am phone call came in. What'd they do, short a power bus through a rookie/colourblind sparky?
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 07:39 |
|
D. Ebdrup posted:So is every other machine that's connected to the internet!
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 09:13 |
|
Cirrhosis Johnson posted:Real quote from a customer: Tell them cutting boxes had nothing to do with Office or their system. Ticket resolved.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 10:59 |
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:What'd they do, short a power bus through a rookie/colourblind sparky? Only thing I can think of is that they were working on, or a system near, the EPO switch. That's the only thing in the system that sits between all the power systems and <everything else>. But I'm not a datacenter engineer or power engineer, so I can't say for sure. One thing is sure, the official story will probably be different than actual facts.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 13:50 |
|
Cirrhosis Johnson posted:Real quote from a customer: Yeah, even I cut on pretty much any system 10, they don't office up either.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 14:08 |
|
Cirrhosis Johnson posted:Real quote from a customer: "Cut my box into pieces / this is is my last reboot."
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 14:37 |
|
Renegret posted:I wish I could share this e-mail with the thread because it makes no loving sense. Okay, why is this so hard? Unplug all network connections and reboot the system. Assuming Windows, it'll be a 169 address which is definitely private and not a 10 or 192 range. And it will be the most secure. What's the problem? Malek fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Oct 2, 2017 |
# ? Oct 2, 2017 14:42 |
|
Sounds to me like the internal IP is for some reason a public IP and they want a 172.16.0.0/12 Address on it.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 14:47 |
|
SEKCobra posted:Sounds to me like the internal IP is for some reason a public IP and they want a 172.16.0.0/12 Address on it. Configuring their internal network is very much not the ISP's problem.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 15:42 |
|
I would like the IP 69.420.69.24/7, please assign that one to my PC. Thanks in advance.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 21:21 |
|
Just got back a laptop that I didn't know still existed. It had the Novell Client and GroupWise installed on Windows XP. We got rid of everything Novell in 2008. Still boots up ok though. Hasn't had network access in years, thankfully.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 21:36 |
|
GreenNight posted:Just got back a laptop that I didn't know still existed. It had the Novell Client and GroupWise installed on Windows XP. We got rid of everything Novell in 2008. Still boots up ok though. In all seriousness, I miss Novell NetWare. There was a steady predictability to it. Whenever $thing revealed a bug in the client, I could always count on NetWare to be 4 weeks out with a new client version that invariably solved my issue. It got to the point where I would get a Pavlovian sense of relief every time I downloaded and installed the latest build and was treated to a freshly revamped candy-apple red client window.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 01:32 |
|
They still come out with new builds!
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 04:09 |
|
GreenNight posted:They still come out with new builds!
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 05:03 |
|
Agrikk posted:In all seriousness, I miss Novell NetWare. There was a steady predictability to it. Years ago I worked in a Novell shop, and one of the Novell admins/gurus there absolutely refused to teach me anything about it because it would infringe on his job security.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 09:32 |
|
Wrath of the Bitch King posted:Years ago I worked in a Novell shop, and one of the Novell admins/gurus there absolutely refused to teach me anything about it because it would infringe on his job security. Who's laughing now?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 12:24 |
|
GreenNight posted:They still come out with new builds! From beyond the grave!
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 13:00 |
|
Knormal posted:I would like the IP 69.420.69.24/7, please assign that one to my PC. Thanks in advance. Isn't this (except for the /7) technically possible with ipv6?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 14:42 |
|
Kurieg posted:Isn't this (except for the /7) technically possible with ipv6?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 17:43 |
|
anthonypants posted:The number 7 is valid in IPv6, too. My network admin class was back before IPv6 was a thing, and I seem to have internalized my professors hatred of odd-digit-subnets as "thing that IPv4 doesn't support" rather than just something that my professor hated for some reason.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 17:50 |
|
Kurieg posted:My network admin class was back before IPv6 was a thing, and I seem to have internalized my professors hatred of odd-digit-subnets as "thing that IPv4 doesn't support" rather than just something that my professor hated for some reason.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 17:56 |
|
I wonder why somebody teaching networking would push an idea that odd numbered subnets are "annoying" or not-a-thing. There's no reason you can't mask a single bit.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 18:02 |
Maybe he learned networking before classless inter-domain routing?
|
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 18:04 |
|
The only thing I can think of is that if you're subnetting, the first address will never end in an odd number, unless that subnet is /32, but that's not really subnetting.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 20:31 |
|
Or if you're having fun with wildcard masks and their "well technically you can do this" math.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 20:38 |
|
In hindsight he had a lot of weird hangups about "proper network setup" so, mea culpa I guess.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 20:45 |
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:Or if you're having fun with wildcard masks and their "well technically you can do this" math. The RFQ technically doesn't explicitly state that you CAN'T do this, so through this logic it's allowable.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 20:45 |
|
anthonypants posted:Yeah, IPv4 subnetting is easy. anthonypants fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 3, 2017 |
# ? Oct 3, 2017 20:50 |
|
anthonypants posted:Yeah, IPv4 subnetting is easy. Thanks Ants posted:And for some reason the Cisco official way of teaching that makes it sound really loving complicated Thanks for this, I did indeed learn it the Cisco way and found it very confusing.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 21:49 |
|
If I teach subnetting, I always do it the bitwise way. In my head, I do something much closer to what anthonypants posted in that I use block sizes as a shortcut.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 21:57 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 01:32 |
|
anthonypants posted:32 = 32 ones, zero zeroes = 0xffffffff Binary = Hex 1111 1110 = FE 1111 1100 = FC 1111 1000 = F8
|
# ? Oct 3, 2017 22:02 |