Unitrends Why are you still using flash?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@creayt said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
As the topic says. I love Unitrends But come on, why are you still using flash for your interface? We need it gone. Make a new interface that is not flash based and doesn't need any browser plugins. Are there any plans for this? This is my only major grip with Unitrends.
Flash is baked into Chrome, so it might "just work" in it if you have that installed.
That's how I use it since we don't have Flash installed on our machines separately. We all have Chrome, so that works fine.
That's how I use it right now. But I don't like having to use chrome for it.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't install chrome on servers.
Why do you want to access the UT console from a server? Is there some feature that makes that useful? We just access it from desktops.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't install chrome on servers.
Why do you want to access the UT console from a server? Is there some feature that makes that useful? We just access it from desktops.
Most of the time but during setup or restores it can be useful.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't install chrome on servers.
I actually always install chrome on a server, but leave IE as the default in protected mode. Then when I rarely need to do something directly from the server, I have Chrome there.
-
@KatieUnitrends Says Soon. No ETA though.
-
-
This has been an ongoing contention many have against Unitrends. Many want them to move to HTML5, but this means the ENTIRE GUI CODEBASE must be redeveloped and re-written. This is no small task They've had this on their roadmap for years, no lie. However, they've had other more pressing issues to attend to.
@thecreativeone91, I don't know why you're so opposed to installing Chrome on your servers. I also agree with @scottalanmiller that there should be no reason you have to access the interface from the server. You can do it all from your workstation, assuming they are all on the same network. There is no benefit to doing it from a server other than referencing specific files to restore, possibly, if you're restoring individual files.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91, I don't know why you're so opposed to installing Chrome on your servers.
It's a security risk. There's a reason you use IE in protected mode (and only access Intranet) on servers. And don't install flash/java client. It's a big security risk and chrome bypasses that protection. That's only okay on terminal servers. Other server that would make you fail a lot of compliance audits.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91, I don't know why you're so opposed to installing Chrome on your servers.
It's a security risk. There's a reason you use IE in protected mode (and only access Intranet) on servers. And don't install flash/java client. It's a big security risk and chrome bypasses that protection. That's only okay on terminal servers. Other server that would make you fail a lot of compliance audits.
One could argue the opposite too. Using IE is traditionally insecure and using Chrome would be a security bonus. Seems like it would pass a more stringent audit with Chrome that with IE.
In reality, I prefer neither and would like my servers GUIless.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91, I don't know why you're so opposed to installing Chrome on your servers.
It's a security risk. There's a reason you use IE in protected mode (and only access Intranet) on servers. And don't install flash/java client. It's a big security risk and chrome bypasses that protection. That's only okay on terminal servers. Other server that would make you fail a lot of compliance audits.
One could argue the opposite too. Using IE is traditionally insecure and using Chrome would be a security bonus. Seems like it would pass a more stringent audit with Chrome that with IE.
In reality, I prefer neither and would like my servers GUIless.
Chrome doesn't have protected mode, and can browser the internet freely. IE in protected mode can only go to Windows KB/Update downloads and Intranet. Chrome nor firefox never passes on gui based windows servers.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Chrome doesn't have protected mode, and can browser the internet freely. IE in protected mode can only go to Windows KB/Update downloads and Intranet. Chrome nor firefox never passes on gui based windows servers.
Never passes what? I'd flag IE in an audit before Chrome. If you are using the browser itself for blocking rather than more stringent controls, that alone should be a fail. Firewalls and proxies are far more secure than letting software self-regulate.
-
Auditing is not something official. It's just hiring people, generally the least competent people, to go look at something for you. I've had auditors flag things like 'patching' as a process that had to be justified!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Auditing is not something official.
Depends on the compliance. There are many of them that I've had to follow that audit. If you don't comply your systems have to be taken offline til fixed.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Auditing is not something official.
Depends on the compliance. There are many of them that I've had to follow that audit. If you don't comply your systems have to be taken offline til fixed.
Yes, but "auditing" is just a random term. Like saying that "no admin will do X". But there is generally not just an admin who will, but many that will swear by it.
Official audits, often, are very insecure. You do them to pass a cert, not to be secure. So while yes, there are "official" audits for things like PCI compliance, you don't use them when you want to just be audited for security. If you are doing a security audit, Chrome might easily pass and IE not. Windows itself might not even pass, but normally would. If you have audit backed by a vendor trying to make a buck or an auditor that is just using checkboxes, any random thing might or might not be allowed.
But it is very important to not connect the actions of one audit with another. Many audits are at odds with each other. I've certainly been through audits that require things that would fail a more common audit process.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Auditing is not something official.
Depends on the compliance. There are many of them that I've had to follow that audit. If you don't comply your systems have to be taken offline til fixed.
Yes, but "auditing" is just a random term. Like saying that "no admin will do X". But there is generally not just an admin who will, but many that will swear by it.
Official audits, often, are very insecure. You do them to pass a cert, not to be secure. So while yes, there are "official" audits for things like PCI compliance, you don't use them when you want to just be audited for security. If you are doing a security audit, Chrome might easily pass and IE not. Windows itself might not even pass, but normally would. If you have audit backed by a vendor trying to make a buck or an auditor that is just using checkboxes, any random thing might or might not be allowed.
But it is very important to not connect the actions of one audit with another. Many audits are at odds with each other. I've certainly been through audits that require things that would fail a more common audit process.
This +10000!
-
-
We had to replace power strips a few years ago because the auditors as of that year only accepted strips with some new code stamped on them, but where otherwise identical to the ones we already had.
-
@Dashrender said:
We had to replace power strips a few years ago because the auditors as of that year only accepted strips with some new code stamped on them, but where otherwise identical to the ones we already had.
I remember you saying about that!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
We had to replace power strips a few years ago because the auditors as of that year only accepted strips with some new code stamped on them, but where otherwise identical to the ones we already had.
I remember you saying about that!
The crazy thing auditors want just to keep somebody employed... don't get me wrong.. we need audits to keep people honest, but at the same time it should be OK to find nothing wrong with those you're auditing too.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
We had to replace power strips a few years ago because the auditors as of that year only accepted strips with some new code stamped on them, but where otherwise identical to the ones we already had.
I remember you saying about that!
The crazy thing auditors want just to keep somebody employed... don't get me wrong.. we need audits to keep people honest, but at the same time it should be OK to find nothing wrong with those you're auditing too.
It's the auditors that we have the hardest time keeping honest, though!
