@sreekumarpg said:

Thanks all.

It was a miss configuration in Remote Access VPN Group Policy.

I have added local DNS and external DNS (google DNS) in the group policy DNS Server , then Inherit the DNS names in Split Tunneling and disable send all DNS lookups through Tunnel .

Now the nslookup work like charm in any connect vpn 😃

Glad it was fixed!

@thecreativeone91 said:

@thanksaj said:

sudo a2enmod rewrite

So it was your Apache config

I figured it was. I just couldn't find the solution. I'm documenting it here as much for myself for the possibility I need it again in the future as others.

Thanks for the follow up.

Someone should test it 🙂

Never really used it but hear a lot of people really like it.

@AmanBhogal said:

The harware upgrade is a one time charge.

This is good to know. Thanks!

@thanksaj said:

@Dashrender said:

@sreekumarpg said:

Thanks all for the valid answers..

I planned to redirect the Desktop and my documents to network folder and assign permission as readonly access, so that users cant save any files on desktops. Also Restrict access to c & D drives in my computer, so that they are not able to store files in drive.

Thanks !!

Wow, I've never heard anyone doing this before. I will be surprised if you don't have issues.

If the idea is to ensure that everyone always has access to everything (seems like an overly paranoid request) then you can grant full access (or at least read/write access) to the redirection folder on the server. When setting up the folder redirection in GPO make sure you don't check the box that gives only the user exclusive access.

This is going to cause a mountain of issues, I'm warning you. If the issue is that users are saving them on the local desktop and not on a NAS/network drive, use folder redirection, which is easy with GPO. If it's just users saving documents on the local machines period, you need to look at alternative approaches to how you handle your workstations.

Just to make sure anyone wasn't confused by my post. My intention wasn't to say that the redirection for all users would go to the same folder. Everyone would get a subfolder of the root share just like normal, but everyone would be granted full permissions which is definitely not something that's normal. So there shouldn't be an inherent problems with this, but of course users would mess with each other pretty badly if they wanted.

@scottalanmiller said:

@thanksaj said:

@scottalanmiller said:

And SO hard to automate. /etc files are dirt simple to script. Try scripting against the Registry. You can, but it is like three times the work for no reason.

Agreed. I've fallen in love with cron!

Do you love it so much that..... you'd give it a ..... "cronjob"?

Bwahahaha. Sorry, could. Not. Resist.

LOL. wags finger

@StrongBad said:

Fail2Ban, that's always my first add on.

Ditto this.

If it's not in their router database on the dd-wrt website, it's not supported. Sorry. They have every exact model they support listed. Trust me.

@StrongBad said:

Doesn't GMail just let you have domain aliases?

Only if you pay for Google Apps. They used to have a free tier along with Outlook/Hotmail. But the only free custom domain one now (that I know of) is Zoho.

Gladinet seems to be pretty good, almost 30 minutes, I was able to plug in gladinet to tier up with our test AD and netapp shared drive, and publish already enabled home folders for users by importing from AD to gladinet. Now testing that with Pertino installed home machine. So far I am happy, need to deep dive into Gladinet and see the features.

On a side note, I think this will work well with desktop clients with Pertino, but not sure how this can be accomplished via Pertino smarphone client? Is there any way I could connect Perino mobile client to the network and use the local browser/gladinet app to identify my remote server?

@thecreativeone91

It was enabled, but wasn't logging. It may have been an issue with SELinux. I've since started over by reimaging the server. Further discussion is occurring here.

Appreciate the input!

Been posting behind the WatchGuard that always gave me trouble for a couple weeks with no issues. definitely resolved something.

I don't think bonding is really going to help you. The problem is that if the connection is established over one of the links it stays on that link and doesn't "split" between the two you have a call on one connection and some extra bandwidth the call will likely establish on the next connection and you will just end up with extra unused bandwidth as the bonding doesn't really bond them into a single line. It can work fine where you have a bunch of small sporadic web page loading but, I don't think it will help in your situation.

Is this is single location IP Phone system or do you have a VPN in multiple locations? First I'd look for a better WAN connection, either Fiber, Cable or a WISP etc. If you can't do that you might go with a PRI, or single analog lines or even a cellular interface for the pbx.

Some simple ones, sure.

I don't like the idea of having a middle man. Also, how the company makes money is unclear to me and I don't like that.

@Dashrender said:

Does anyone know if any of the Linux distros support it? or is it something they can't support because money has to be paid to the UEFI people or the OEMs so that something is embedded? Frankly I'm not exactly sure how it works.

I know for CentOS 7 in Hyper-V generation 2 I have to disable secure boot if I want the system to install.