Face palm. "You can lead a user to safety but you cannot make him think."

Cleaning up after a Docusign spear phishing incident. The bastards got over 900 emails off before we could shut it down. I am sure this is nothing on the scale of "What could happen".

Enjoying my first KVM machine.....

Am I the only person that has ADD so bad that you start a million projects and never finish any of them? If you have overcome something like this, what was the secret?............................ SQUIRREL!!!!!

No matter what I do I keep getting the same issue. When trying to connect from my management server to the headless HOST I get the following.

This is the Host Machine.

This is the management machine which is a VM.

I keep going around in circles from everything I have googled. I did enable a virtual nic card which knocked me out and then i could not connect anymore. I was able to remove the vitual interface which caused the box to go back to the physical NIC. I reestablished connectivity to the box and can RDP into it. I can ping each box from one to the other. This tells me I am back on the network and everything is talking except I keep getting the WinRM cannot complete the operation. I am fully prepared to take the lumps due if it is something simple like "have you rebooted". (I have) I have really tried to get this one figured out but lack of experience is eating my lunch. Any pointers would greatly be appreciated.

Manager pinging host:

Host pinging Manager:

Apologies if this format is bad. Pointers on that would be good too. Thank you.

Just in case there are those like me that did not consider this. If you fall for the "Free" credit monitoring offered by Equifax, upon agreement you forfeit your right to sue for any damages. Not that I could afford to sue, but if you can or might dont fall for it.

That escalated quickly. :confused_face:

Thanks for all the help. The Dig command is now in my tool bag. Thank you Jared.

Confession time: 7.5 hrs into the 48 hr wait and hope, I discovered an issue.

The domain was wardmechanical.com.

Our isp, which we have a great relationship with (they are awesome) put in the initial DNS entry for me because we were working on the website (we have a guy for website stuff). I was sitting reading about DNS going over in my head what I could have done wrong. While starring at the DNS entry page it suddenly jumped out at me.

The zone was set up with wardmechancial.com

The I and C were transposed........ Wow........ :astonished_face:

So I did a FTFY and within seconds things started talking.

Ya live, ya learn, ya die......

@scottalanmiller Just watched a news report that says that their website that sells the protection they are going to give you was the site that got hacked..... OY!!!

@scottalanmiller said in How many of you...:

It's a right given to citizens to protect them from the government.

" It's a right given to citizens to protect them from the government."....
BAM!!! Bill of rights. Summed up. One sentence.

My brand new U-LTE cellular failover device from Ubiquity appears to have lost its APN setting. I guess default is not the Dallas Fort Worth metro plex in texas. It is the one that AT&T has its hooks into, or at least from what i understand. Has this happened to someone else? I can get into the config but do not want to touch any settings for fear of doing more harm than good. I reached out to Ubiquity Support and they shot back that I needed to get the correct settings for the device from AT&T. Not real sure how to do that. Have found lots of information. Since i am paying ubiquity a monthly charge for the service I am not sure who to reach out to. Anyway. Any help would be appreciated.

C-Level finally serious about MFA..... Commence research position...... Engage.

@pmoncho said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

@phlipelder said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

Over my head?

yeah I didn't get this one either.

Nice to know I am not alone.

WOW!!! Thanks for the ego boost guys!!! I got it right off. I happen to be 51. That makes me a rock star in my own mind.

@jasgot said in Apple plans to scan your images for child porn:

Because there is no expectation of privacy concerning your data on their servers, unless they told you there was. Even so, they can change the rules about their storage facilities as they wish.

It is unfortunate but true. Caveat emptor.

@carnival-boy said in Apple plans to scan your images for child porn:

Scanned, but the info is private. Apple explicitly don't have access to the data until it is uploaded to iCloud.

It is no accident that totalitarian systems in which there is no freedom whatsoever also tolerate no privacy.

Recent history, in my lifetime, privacy has eroded. I dont care what side of the isle you are on, if someone says your information is private, they are lying to you. It doesnt matter who is leading the ship, if you dont protect your privacy like you protect your own life.

It is a slippery slope to "Find me the person and I will find a crime that suits your needs".

They are all lying, until such time as their actions prove otherwise.

@scottalanmiller said in Apple plans to scan your images for child porn:

We just have to trust them on that, if that's even what they are saying.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!! nope......

I dont care who you are, dont trust ya. Keep yer booger hooks away from my info.

@scottalanmiller yes it is!!! I hope it is not used as a tool to incarcerate enemies of whoever is in power. How hard would it be to plant a porn mine?

@dashrender said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:

I'm curious, in that setup, are you paying this third party, the one who imported your real DID, for inbound mins? or a flat monthly fee for inbound calling?

Its a flat monthly fee I believe, all rolled into one bill. So breaking out the phone part may be tough. I am going to dig into the "Did we "Really" need to port our DID. For now, it is so convoluted and fraught with WTF's, I am going to suggest that we go ahead and rather we can or cannot, just add the warning. Easy peasy.

@jaredbusch said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:

@popester said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:

A formal porting from our provider Lumen to their (need to find out theirs) provider occurred.

This scares me. Good to get away from Lumen (Century Link, you cannot hide behind a new name.....), but since it sound like they are only needing CID info, there is no reason the number should need ported to them.

I mean sure, maybe it was a cost savings also? But wow, to me, this sounds like a scary coupling of services that should not exist.

As always, Jared, thank you for your expertise. You have given me plenty of stuff to research. Exactly what i was hoping for. If you ever need anything let me know.

@jaredbusch said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:

@popester so are you saying that you are hiring a company in a one party consent state to be in the middle of your call flow so that the calls can be recorded at that point without getting consent from the second party?

Let me try not to screw this up.... Your question brings up another good question I need to get answered.

We are hiring a company, of which I currently do not know their corporate location, guessing Ireland, that has per our permission, possession of the direct dial inward pbx location (pardon the broken lingo). So technically, IMHO, ownership/possession of said DID is open for interpretation. A formal porting from our provider Lumen to their (need to find out theirs) provider occurred. BTW: not sure this is even relevant. Anyway. Their "software" which we subscribe to data dips the sessions that arrive at the DID and links the caller ID with a customer account and brings up service records and history for the customer that is associated with the caller ID inbound number. In the process of hooking into the session they forward the call with the caller ID information intact to our provider PBX and it hits our call center and is answered by one of our CSR's as if it was an unmolested call directly from the customer.

Whew. Hope you were able to follow my babble.

So, since we are a single consent state, does single consent law still apply? Or. Did the rube machinations leave us open to litigation (HA, made myself laugh) somewhere along the stream?

Now that I am seeing this more clearly. This looks like attorney territory.

But would still like to hear your take on it. Much respect.

Update: the company's corporate office is California. Two party consent state.

Update Update: Plot thickens... They also have "corporate offices" in US.Georgia and Armenia... ?