@Dashrender said in Going from Active Directory Domain to workgroup?:

if you want the users to transparently access the fileserver, then yes, when you change the password on the workstation, you would have to change the password on the server (someone remotes into the server, updates the password to match - done).

If you don't care about transparent access, then the user's have their own local (or MS ) account on their PCs.

The server has it's own set of users created for each person who will have access to the file server.

When the end user of the PC connects to the file server, they willp present their server created credentials, that information is stored by windows and from that point it's transparent.
IF the user changes their password on the PC, the mapped drive will continue as if nothing has changed.

Thanks. I was hoping there was a trick to sync them, although I didn't think there was; and if it isn't a registry, policy. or powershell trick, I would probably avoid it.

(and thanks for staying on topic!)

@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Still Be Using Disk Partitions:

I'd recommend using volumes instead of partitions (Dynamic) so that you have the option of modifying them later and other LVM features.

So this is better?

@scottalanmiller
For regular e-mail (not "Secure E-Mail"), isn't the message traveling un-encrypted when it is moving MTA to MTA on port 25?

So is this drive setup right or wrong based on partitions being obsolete?

@scottalanmiller
Can you do a part two that goes more in-depth?
For example...
Is Windows Disk Management a Volume Manager or Partition Manager?
Is Windows (command line) DiskPart a Partition manager or a Volume Manager?

It appears Microsoft uses the terms interchangeably.
In Disk Management, they are listed as Volumes, but their status is Partition
In DiskPart they are listed as Volumes with "Type" of Partition?

Sorry I wasn't more clear about my question. But it did get answered. Thanks for the input.

We have a customer that is sunsetting and he needs a new server.

He has been on an AD domain for decades with a full staff, but now there are only two people.....

I am considering moving him to a workgroup, but I have one question to resolve before I move forward.....

How do you handle user accounts and password?

The way I understand it, is that I will create a username and password for each of them on the server and then use mapped drives and URIs for their data.

What happens if they change their password at their PC, do I have to change it to match at the server?

How are you doing it?

And before you ask why a file server, and why mapped drives? The answer is: because.

@Carnival-Boy But if they have 100Mb now and it works fine, how will 100Mb be slow and choppy with a faster ISP?

@scottalanmiller
But he's not a vendor rep. He's the network engineer in charge of all the routers and vlans back to corporate for 84 shopping malls. He an employee of the corporate offices.

This is his responce to my telling him he is nuts for saying it won't pass the traffic if the isp is faster then the Cisco:

"I have been through this before at other malls. Our NOC has been heavily involved, but I will check with them again to see if there is anything we can do.
What I have personally seen, the issues which arise w/o the software licenses, is a higher speed connection overdrives the router, causing choppy audio & slow internet as a result."

Even in if this is true, this is a far cry from "it won't pass the traffic without the license"

I just had a network engineer at a company "With thousands of employees located throughout North America, Europe and Asia" tell me that our cisco 4331 would not work at all under a 1GbE connection from our ISP because we had the default aggregate license.

Let me clarify, he didn't say it would only work at 100x100, he said it would not work at all!

We understand it will only work at 100x100 while connected to a 1000x1000 connection unless we buy the Performance or Boost license. I can't believe he said it simply would not work.

Sheesh!

@Yonah-S
Yes.

@Yonah-S said in Anybody have any old IT equipment to sell?:

Possibly VOIP phones depending on how old /used they are

I have:
two Yealink T46G
one Yealink T48S
one Polycom VVX410
one Polycom VVX310
three Polycom VVX201

All are like new but a little dusty. They were setup in our showroom, and never used or played with.

Anyone gone through this yet? We use it for notifications on equipment status for personal use, about 50 messages a day or so.

There doesn't seem to be a registration option for personal use.

https://www.twilio.com/docs/sms/a2p-10dlc/onboarding-low-volume-standard

@Dashrender said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

So you have access to the hypervisor allowing you to turn off the VM, but you can't replace the hypervisor yourself?

Oh. I see what you are asking. It is a physical machine right now. It is not a hypervisor. What we are talking about is making it a VM under our hypervisor to give us a Full Disk Encryption and the ability to maintain our own backup.

@Dashrender said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

So you have access to the hypervisor allowing you to turn off the VM, but you can't replace the hypervisor yourself?

I'm not sure what you are asking..... I have no access inside what will be the running VM. I may be able to mount the offline VM and inject software or new users, but that may upset the 3rd party vendor.

@scottalanmiller said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

We use ProxMox. KVM is definitely the leader on the hypervisor side. Which package you use for it is up to you. We've had great luck with ProxMox now, though. We are running a LOT of them

I have been reading about ProxMox, specifically the backup system. It looks like I need to install a client, but I can't install anything on the server managed by others. What other options do I have? Just shut down the VM and make a backup of the Virtual Disk holding the VM?

@scottalanmiller said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

@pmoncho said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

If the client controls the server hardware, then SED SSD is a an option.

If they control the hardware, they can virtualize. Just image the system and done.

I'd like to explore this further. What is the best VM host these days?

@scottalanmiller said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

@JasGot said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

@JaredBusch said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

without a user present.

This is ok.

If a user isn't present, it can't qualify as encrypted. Or something equivalent to a user. This is the same as intentionally not complying. If that's okay, why not just ignore the request altogether?

I meant: it's ok if a user has to go and start up the server after an outage.

@scottalanmiller said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

That would be the intent of any "encrypted at rest" request.

Correct!

@scottalanmiller said in Hard disk encryption without OS access?:

Why not do what I said? Seems like a REALLY simple solution that actually solves every aspect of the problem, including intent.

Because I hadn't read it yet Hehehe......