| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
network admin
My friendly network admin remotely synchronized my computer to the
network while I was saving a very large wav in sound forge. The result? Corrupted file, and the project I worked for 2 weeks on, completely ruined. Network admins: stay away from our audio! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kayte" wrote in message oups.com... My friendly network admin remotely synchronized my computer to the network while I was saving a very large wav in sound forge. The result? Corrupted file, and the project I worked for 2 weeks on, completely ruined. Network admins: stay away from our audio! I won't say a thing... other than to remind you of all that I *didn't* say when we were discussing this in the "SF Problem" thread. You were definitely warned by someone, to disconnect from any network (especially one that's run by folks who believed that you had to upgrade your workstation to XP in the first place) before working on serious audio. I'm surprised that Forge didn't offer a recovery file. And just so you know... I honestly am sorry that this happened to you. Your local XP & networking sceptic -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Very unfortunate. I'm just thankful that there's not a tight deadline
on this project and that I'm paid hourly. Forge offered a recovery file but lost my regions list; rather than do sloppy guesswork of redoing the regions list, it was better to start all over. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kayte" wrote ...
My friendly network admin remotely synchronized my computer to the network while I was saving a very large wav in sound forge. The result? Corrupted file, and the project I worked for 2 weeks on, completely ruined. Network admins: stay away from our audio! Workstation users: SAVE locally then COPY the file across the network! |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Workstation users: SAVE locally then COPY the file across the network! "
- Richard Crowley Repeat this mantra over and over...... and... Always keep a working copy on your local drive! |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'll speak for the network admins: keep your non-company applications off of
company hardware and you won't have that problem again. -Ben "Kayte" wrote in message oups.com... My friendly network admin remotely synchronized my computer to the network while I was saving a very large wav in sound forge. The result? Corrupted file, and the project I worked for 2 weeks on, completely ruined. Network admins: stay away from our audio! |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hm. I always save locally. In fact, my drives are the main audio
storage. And as for applications, I run a tight ship, I try to keep only sound forge on the audio computer, but the network admins keep installing aim and microsoft office on it. I have to remove them almost every day! The problem is, no matter how many times my department explains to their department why these computers are different, they think the audio computers should look just like the office computers. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kayte" wrote in message ... Hm. I always save locally. In fact, my drives are the main audio storage. And as for applications, I run a tight ship, I try to keep only sound forge on the audio computer, but the network admins keep installing aim and microsoft office on it. I have to remove them almost every day! You're kidding, right? I don't see how you can get these things out of an XP box where someone else has administrative rights and multiple users exist. 'Aim' doesn't belong on *anything,* and I think you're kidding about the 'office' thing, because you know it's the biggest bog-down you can put on an audio box besides AV. The problem is, no matter how many times my department explains to their department why these computers are different, they think the audio computers should look just like the office computers. Then refer the idiots to any number of internet resources regarding optimization for audio... did you never show them your SF thread? At this point (if I were responsible to the clients) I'd be bringing my own computer to work to do the critical work. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ben Hanson" wrote in message... I'll speak for the network admins: keep your non-company applications off of company hardware and you won't have that problem again. The problem (as described) has nothing to do with superfluous applications... It had to do with untimely access by administrators and failure to properly save a portion of the work prior to interruption. DM |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the machine belongs to the company and the machine is on the company's
network then there is no such thing as "untimely access". This virus going around today shows once again how important it is for businesses to keep tight control over their hardware or risk killing the entire network, potentially, and bringing everyone's productivity to a halt. You gotta go with the lesser evil and the lesser evil sometime sis inconveniencing users for the good of all. Now I am assuming here of course that the machine belongs to the company and that the audio apps installed are unapproved or being used for unapproved purposes. If that is not the case then I apologize, cause that is a whole other thing! But even if that is the case, such as is often the case in corporate marketing departments that insist on using Mac's when everyone else is on XP, those segments of the network can and should be expected to be overly scrutinized and segmented onto other networks to protect everyone else from them, and vice-versa. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... -Ben "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message news:FjJMe.9190$1b5.8013@trnddc05... "Ben Hanson" wrote in message... I'll speak for the network admins: keep your non-company applications off of company hardware and you won't have that problem again. The problem (as described) has nothing to do with superfluous applications... It had to do with untimely access by administrators and failure to properly save a portion of the work prior to interruption. DM |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ben Hanson" wrote in message... If the machine belongs to the company and the machine is on the company's network then there is no such thing as "untimely access". Then you know little to nothing about dedicated audio workstations and why it's almost essential that such CPU and software intensive apps be left uninterrupted. Obviously, the pea-brained nerds that took over this poster's facility a few weeks ago have no clue, either. ;-) This virus going around today shows once again how important it is for businesses to keep tight control over their hardware or risk killing the entire network, potentially, and bringing everyone's productivity to a halt. Fool end users will bring on the viruses, and they'd hurt only themselves if it wasn't for all the network hooplah that's party totally unecessary. You gotta go with the lesser evil and the lesser evil sometime is inconveniencing users for the good of all. I'm sorry about your current experiences with a virus. Obviously, you have a few daft users or you have systems that are constantly tied to a network which is constantly tied to the internet... or all of the above. The *user* is responsible for virus infections -- teach 'em right from wrong or boot 'em... or don't allow them to receive data at all. A dedicated workstation (which this person's machine *was* before some desk-jockey networking types took over the company, forced an OS upgrade and demanded networking) should never see the light of the internet or be forced to have an open network running in the background. Work paid for by a consumer has to be *guaranteed*. Now I am assuming here of course that the machine belongs to the company and that the audio apps installed are unapproved or being used for unapproved purposes. Well... obviously, you missed a couple of earlier threads by this poster. g (See paragraph above) If that is not the case then I apologize, cause that is a whole other thing! But even if that is the case, such as is often the case in corporate marketing departments that insist on using Mac's when everyone else is on XP, those segments of the network can and should be expected to be overly scrutinized and segmented onto other networks to protect everyone else from them, and vice-versa. They probably shouldn't be networked *at all* !! But I understand that having bulk access to the internet is of almighty importance these days, followed by inter-office sharing of information and external hardware. Dedicated audio or graphics workstations do NOT need to be on the internet or a network for any reason as a part of the general operating routine. There are alternative methods or times for transferring files. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... You *are* an IT Nazi. ;-) You've obviously not grown through many of the tribulations of audio software conflicts over the years as audio has migrated to computer. It's the end user that's responsible for your security concerns, though. I do not use anti-virus products and never have, nor have I ever had a virus.... and I don't need a systems administrator to control my access because they either don't trust me or want access to my PC. Sorry, but I'll take the side of the audio person long before the networking person, because I understand how important it is to dedicate usage. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kayte wrote:
Hm. I always save locally. In fact, my drives are the main audio storage. And as for applications, I run a tight ship, I try to keep only sound forge on the audio computer, but the network admins keep installing aim and microsoft office on it. I have to remove them almost every day! The problem is, no matter how many times my department explains to their department why these computers are different, they think the audio computers should look just like the office computers. In which case the company employs nitwits for net admin. I now understand your "getting paid by the hour" remark. -- ha |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ben Hanson" wrote ...
And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... If you don't have an IT Nazi looking out for you, the computer has no business being connected to a network which is connected to the Internet. Thats just life in today's world whether we like it or not. Saving a large file of great instrinsic value over the network is just risky behavior and you can expect to get burned if you insist on doing such things. Always save to the local hard drive and THEN copy the file to the network (and then delete the redundant local copy if desired.) |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Like I said in my last post, if the machine was dedicated for audio purposes
then that is different. My understanding of the original post (which appears to be wrong) was that the user had a normal company machine and decided to install audio apps on it for personal use. I understand completely how important it is to dedicate audio workstations to the task, I have many of my own that are dedicated to this same task. Saying virus prevention is left to the end-user is only partly right. While poor practices on the part of end users result in many virus transmissions, there are a lot of viruses that spread in other ways. The one going around right now, for example, requires nothing to spread, except an OS with a particular flaw unpatched. Many root kits don't even require that much to spread. That's great that you have never had a virus but it's mostly because you are lucky and/or your machine(s) are not networked. In a corporate network environment, your "end user is responsible for security" ideas are about the fastest way possible outside of visiting porn sites to get infected. IS people have to find a balance here and neither side is usually happy with it. But at the end of the day if it's on my network, it belongs to me. And, if the user cannot or will not allow me to secure the machine to protect it, and protect others from it, then that's too bad. If this user's network is so poorly designed that they cannot safely accomodate the need for a dedicated audio workstation then their IS guys are idiots, but there are ways to do it and make all sides happy if you know what you are doing. And BTW we don't have the virus, because the 4 or 5 layers of defense from the Internet in to the network are blocking it. It's all about good design! -Ben "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message news:JfKMe.9872$Xw5.6579@trnddc02... "Ben Hanson" wrote in message... If the machine belongs to the company and the machine is on the company's network then there is no such thing as "untimely access". Then you know little to nothing about dedicated audio workstations and why it's almost essential that such CPU and software intensive apps be left uninterrupted. Obviously, the pea-brained nerds that took over this poster's facility a few weeks ago have no clue, either. ;-) This virus going around today shows once again how important it is for businesses to keep tight control over their hardware or risk killing the entire network, potentially, and bringing everyone's productivity to a halt. Fool end users will bring on the viruses, and they'd hurt only themselves if it wasn't for all the network hooplah that's party totally unecessary. You gotta go with the lesser evil and the lesser evil sometime is inconveniencing users for the good of all. I'm sorry about your current experiences with a virus. Obviously, you have a few daft users or you have systems that are constantly tied to a network which is constantly tied to the internet... or all of the above. The *user* is responsible for virus infections -- teach 'em right from wrong or boot 'em... or don't allow them to receive data at all. A dedicated workstation (which this person's machine *was* before some desk-jockey networking types took over the company, forced an OS upgrade and demanded networking) should never see the light of the internet or be forced to have an open network running in the background. Work paid for by a consumer has to be *guaranteed*. Now I am assuming here of course that the machine belongs to the company and that the audio apps installed are unapproved or being used for unapproved purposes. Well... obviously, you missed a couple of earlier threads by this poster. g (See paragraph above) If that is not the case then I apologize, cause that is a whole other thing! But even if that is the case, such as is often the case in corporate marketing departments that insist on using Mac's when everyone else is on XP, those segments of the network can and should be expected to be overly scrutinized and segmented onto other networks to protect everyone else from them, and vice-versa. They probably shouldn't be networked *at all* !! But I understand that having bulk access to the internet is of almighty importance these days, followed by inter-office sharing of information and external hardware. Dedicated audio or graphics workstations do NOT need to be on the internet or a network for any reason as a part of the general operating routine. There are alternative methods or times for transferring files. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... You *are* an IT Nazi. ;-) You've obviously not grown through many of the tribulations of audio software conflicts over the years as audio has migrated to computer. It's the end user that's responsible for your security concerns, though. I do not use anti-virus products and never have, nor have I ever had a virus.... and I don't need a systems administrator to control my access because they either don't trust me or want access to my PC. Sorry, but I'll take the side of the audio person long before the networking person, because I understand how important it is to dedicate usage. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message... If you don't have an IT Nazi looking out for you, the computer has no business being connected to a network which is connected to the Internet. Thats just life in today's world whether we like it or not. Just so's ya' knows... I really agree with this. I just believe that dedicated workstations don't belong there. Peace |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: "Kayte" wrote in message ... Hm. I always save locally. In fact, my drives are the main audio storage. And as for applications, I run a tight ship, I try to keep only sound forge on the audio computer, but the network admins keep installing aim and microsoft office on it. I have to remove them almost every day! You're kidding, right? I don't see how you can get these things out of an XP box where someone else has administrative rights and multiple users exist. 'Aim' doesn't belong on *anything,* and I think you're kidding about the 'office' thing, because you know it's the biggest bog-down you can put on an audio box besides AV. The problem is, no matter how many times my department explains to their department why these computers are different, they think the audio computers should look just like the office computers. Then refer the idiots to any number of internet resources regarding optimization for audio... did you never show them your SF thread? At this point (if I were responsible to the clients) I'd be bringing my own computer to work to do the critical work. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com Today I went up (the network people are 2 floors up from the programmers, data entry, and "multimedia content" (that's me and the video guy) people) and explained that I really would like them to stop installing things on my computer and showed them parts of the SF thread about how much memory sound forge uses. The woman I talked to was incredulous that I could do without microsoft word, even though I have it on my other computer-the one i access the internet on. I explained that the audio computer was really different from the rest of the computers in function and that should I need to use word, aim, the internet, etc, i could do so on the slower office box. I think I got through. She wouldn't give me 98 back or let me get off the network, though. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: "Ben Hanson" wrote in message... If the machine belongs to the company and the machine is on the company's network then there is no such thing as "untimely access". Then you know little to nothing about dedicated audio workstations and why it's almost essential that such CPU and software intensive apps be left uninterrupted. Obviously, the pea-brained nerds that took over this poster's facility a few weeks ago have no clue, either. ;-) This virus going around today shows once again how important it is for businesses to keep tight control over their hardware or risk killing the entire network, potentially, and bringing everyone's productivity to a halt. Fool end users will bring on the viruses, and they'd hurt only themselves if it wasn't for all the network hooplah that's party totally unecessary. You gotta go with the lesser evil and the lesser evil sometime is inconveniencing users for the good of all. I'm sorry about your current experiences with a virus. Obviously, you have a few daft users or you have systems that are constantly tied to a network which is constantly tied to the internet... or all of the above. The *user* is responsible for virus infections -- teach 'em right from wrong or boot 'em... or don't allow them to receive data at all. A dedicated workstation (which this person's machine *was* before some desk-jockey networking types took over the company, forced an OS upgrade and demanded networking) should never see the light of the internet or be forced to have an open network running in the background. Work paid for by a consumer has to be *guaranteed*. Now I am assuming here of course that the machine belongs to the company and that the audio apps installed are unapproved or being used for unapproved purposes. Well... obviously, you missed a couple of earlier threads by this poster. g (See paragraph above) If that is not the case then I apologize, cause that is a whole other thing! But even if that is the case, such as is often the case in corporate marketing departments that insist on using Mac's when everyone else is on XP, those segments of the network can and should be expected to be overly scrutinized and segmented onto other networks to protect everyone else from them, and vice-versa. They probably shouldn't be networked *at all* !! But I understand that having bulk access to the internet is of almighty importance these days, followed by inter-office sharing of information and external hardware. Dedicated audio or graphics workstations do NOT need to be on the internet or a network for any reason as a part of the general operating routine. There are alternative methods or times for transferring files. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... You *are* an IT Nazi. ;-) You've obviously not grown through many of the tribulations of audio software conflicts over the years as audio has migrated to computer. It's the end user that's responsible for your security concerns, though. I do not use anti-virus products and never have, nor have I ever had a virus.... and I don't need a systems administrator to control my access because they either don't trust me or want access to my PC. Sorry, but I'll take the side of the audio person long before the networking person, because I understand how important it is to dedicate usage. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com Thank you David. I really feel there is no need for my audio box to be on the network at all, since my room (which houses the audio and video workstations) has a fast local server over which we transfer files to each other. I get material either from the video computer over this server, or directly to my computer from the ADC or cd drive. When I finish with it, I have to burn cds for archival and distribution to customer, and I have very rarely had to send it to another computer in the building (in which case burning a copy wouldn't be that big of a deal). |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard Crowley wrote: Saving a large file of great instrinsic value over the network is just risky behavior and you can expect to get burned if you insist on doing such things. Always save to the local hard drive and THEN copy the file to the network (and then delete the redundant local copy if desired.) I was not saving it over the network; I was saving to my local drive. The remote synchronization of my drive caused a corruption in the file. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kayte wrote:
I was not saving it over the network; I was saving to my local drive. The remote synchronization of my drive caused a corruption in the file. That seems like a problem with the network software. Is this a XP 2003 Server-based system? |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
She wouldn't give me 98 back or let me get off
the network, though. That's nuts. Have you ever looked inside one of those popular disk duplicators? Ours is a 486, running some wierdo version of DOS. By their standard, it needs to run XP and be on the lan. Real intelligent, right? All of their security risks, management hassles, and malware issues go away once that network unbilical is cut. And, your productivity soars. Call them the PIS staff...preventer of information services. :-) -John O |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kayte" wrote in message... I really feel there is no need for my audio box to be on the network at all... Well, you know how I feel. Today I went up (the network people are 2 floors up from the programmers, data entry, and "multimedia content" (that's me and the video guy) people) and explained that I really would like them to stop Maybe it's just a little more communication then... and in doing so, perhaps taking the advice offered by "SSJVCmag" in the documenting of the time lost by this change and it's subsequent troubles. and showed them parts of the SF thread about how much memory sound forge uses. It's not that it uses so much memory, it's moreover that it is simply "operation intensive". Once the software is churning numbers, it stands to reason that it shouldn't be interrupted by *anything*, let alone the silly background processes of the new OS and the superfluous software others would have you install. Best of luck again, DM |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
Sorry, but I'll take the side of the audio person long before the networking person, because I understand how important it is to dedicate usage. I agree to a point. I take the side of people who use their computers inteligently (which means saving locally and using the network only to copy). People who save big, valuable files over the network are just asking for trouble. Especially in an environment already known for its agressive and unpredictable network/computer support gang. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kayte wrote:
Very unfortunate. I'm just thankful that there's not a tight deadline on this project and that I'm paid hourly. Forge offered a recovery file but lost my regions list; rather than do sloppy guesswork of redoing the regions list, it was better to start all over. Don't know why sound forge doesn't save the regions list but I've been burned by that a few times myself. Thus one should add ***save regions list*** to your save procedures. On another note, when I was in a corporate environment they backed up changed files nightly. Lost file/accidental delete? Call the comp center and the file is back in a few minutes. [Older files might take a few hours... ] [YMMV] Later... Ron Capik -- |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ben Hanson wrote:
...snip.. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... -Ben Hmmm, don't know how radical that sounds. Some time ago I attended a network security seminar where they explained in detail how the network is only as secure as it's weakest link. Things have only gotten tighter since then. We did differentiate between lab and office computers; where lab computers had limited network access and the lab owners needed to be their own sys-admins. [YMMV] Later... Ron Capik -- |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:27:59 -0400, Ben Hanson wrote:
This virus going around today shows once again how important it is for businesses to keep tight control over their hardware or risk killing the entire network, potentially, and bringing everyone's productivity to a halt. Tight control, huh? You mean like knowingly installing an OS that's notorious for security flaws & sold by a company that's notorious for ignoring security flaws? If you're a windows admin, I'm not giving you a hard time, I actually feel sorry for you. But if your company makes a conscious decision to trust your critical systems to Gates & Co., then you deserve whatever you get. Now I am assuming here of course that the machine belongs to the company and that the audio apps installed are unapproved or being used for unapproved purposes. Considering the NG you're reading this on, that's probably a bad assumption. If that is not the case then I apologize, cause that is a whole other thing! But even if that is the case, such as is often the case in corporate marketing departments that insist on using Mac's when everyone else is on XP, those segments of the network can and should be expected to be overly scrutinized and segmented onto other networks to protect everyone else from them, and vice-versa. Agreed in principle. But it makes you wonder if the market dept. management doesn't maybe know something the IT managers don't (in this particular hypothetical company, at least). I'll bet you have a lot less virus issues happening on the Macs than on the win boxes. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. I'll vote for a little common sense. I wasted most of the last two days sitting on my hands. I've got deadlines & lots of work I could be doing on 5 different Sun & HP boxes. I'm not getting any work done because the IT Nazis decided to use winblows on the box that runs the VPN gateway. Lucky for me I'm a contractor & they still get billed for downtime when their network is the problem. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:29:08 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
Kayte wrote: I was not saving it over the network; I was saving to my local drive. The remote synchronization of my drive caused a corruption in the file. That seems like a problem with the network software. Is this a XP 2003 Server-based system? Sounds more like a problem with policy. Client to server sync-ups should happen on logon. If the need to happen any other time (emergencies do happen), there should be plenty of notice & a reasonable estimate of when & how long should be provided. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lines: 40
Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling X-Trace: ofjmidbaofeaohdodbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbofk dgbfgifpcjlppcpeiphjjefhhdbmabbjoljdblkpmiiebcgfld cophhllgmmcpdkplkmhbobemncobddjndkcjlonefmmbckmkbm kngjjlijal NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:52:12 EDT Organization: BellSouth Internet Group Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:52:12 GMT Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1192218 On 2005-08-17 said: At this point (if I were responsible to the clients) I'd be bringing my own computer to work to do the critical work. I never saw the earlier SF thread you referred to a couple of times during this one, but have to agree with you here. Having said that however it seems to me that if his work entails audio production the netadmins should be understanding that the audio box should be just that an audio box. I've avoided networking machines around here because my boxes are all pretty much one trick ponies. My lady's windows box does desktop publishing and our bookkeeping chores. tHis box does dos based internet and keeps some databases for me relating to ham radio and other record keeping chores for those activities. My other box runs midi stuff and that's it. A fourth box is in the works which will eventually run some flavor of linux and then become a dedicated internet box. I might network it witrh my other machines for purposes of access from the radio room or from my other desk, but the wife's windows box will not be anywhere upon this network. THis will mean I'll still have to sneaker net drafts of doccuments that need desktop publishing type work to her machine. My braille printer however will be accessible from anywhere else on its network. iF audio output needs to be accessible on the network I'd suggest that the op finish his chore, burn a cd and mount the files on a drive visible to the network and isolate the audio machine from it.THe network folks should be made to understand the realities of the situation here. Richard Webb, Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La. REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email -- "Applying computer technology is as simple as finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw." |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron Capik" wrote in message ... Ben Hanson wrote: ...snip.. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... -Ben Hmmm, don't know how radical that sounds. Some time ago I attended a network security seminar where they explained in detail how the network is only as secure as it's weakest link. Things have only gotten tighter since then. We did differentiate between lab and office computers; where lab computers had limited network access and the lab owners needed to be their own sys-admins. Putting a computer without full, current protection on the internet is like throwing a beefsteak into a pool of piranha. The latest report I saw was that it took only 10 minutes for an unprotected computer to become infected after being connected to the internet. Computers with out of date or incomplete protection just take a little longer. Maybe if Trojan made computer protection and advertised it on TV? |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... "Ron Capik" wrote in message ... Ben Hanson wrote: ...snip.. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... -Ben Hmmm, don't know how radical that sounds. Some time ago I attended a network security seminar where they explained in detail how the network is only as secure as it's weakest link. Things have only gotten tighter since then. We did differentiate between lab and office computers; where lab computers had limited network access and the lab owners needed to be their own sys-admins. Putting a computer without full, current protection on the internet is like throwing a beefsteak into a pool of piranha. The latest report I saw was that it took only 10 minutes for an unprotected computer to become infected after being connected to the internet. Computers with out of date or incomplete protection just take a little longer. Maybe if Trojan made computer protection and advertised it on TV? OK guys... I don't follow this at all. I hate to reiterate my position, because every time I do I get a host of virii thrown my way, but I will anyway. I have two PCs that are constantly on the net unless they are undergoing basic maintenance or being re-booted. I run a typical firewall (ZAPro). I decided in 1996 that I would never again run on-board Anti-Virus software after watching it's relatively miserable performance, it's failure to detect new virii, and how it slowed down the most basic system functions; and after Symantec had announced the availability of on-line virus checks... which I do weekly. One box had been on a dial-up prior to DSL; now it and the other, newer machine, hang on the DSL 'network' almost 24/7. (Neither of these are workstations). I do NOT use Microsoft Outlook, and I stay updated on Win98SE. There are 10 programs secured for access after being prompted for permission, and one (Outlook Express) that has permissions to send and receive mail and to access the net without a prompt. I empty the TIF and cookie folders at least once a day, and always before any shut-down so no cookies are inside on re-boot. I block all pop-ups and have a few weirdly customized scripting setups. How can I possibly get a virus that does not come through e-mail? Thanks, DM |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Ron Capik" wrote in message ... Ben Hanson wrote: ...snip.. And I realize I am sounding like an IT Nazi here but it's really just common sense in today's climate. Maybe it's just this virus stuff lately that has me on the edge... -Ben Hmmm, don't know how radical that sounds. Some time ago I attended a network security seminar where they explained in detail how the network is only as secure as it's weakest link. Things have only gotten tighter since then. We did differentiate between lab and office computers; where lab computers had limited network access and the lab owners needed to be their own sys-admins. Putting a computer without full, current protection on the internet is like throwing a beefsteak into a pool of piranha. The latest report I saw was that it took only 10 minutes for an unprotected computer to become infected after being connected to the internet. Computers with out of date or incomplete protection just take a little longer. Maybe if Trojan made computer protection and advertised it on TV? Our network was all behind a major firewall. Nobody had direct internet access. The network we had access to was a sub-domain of the corporate LAN. [YMMV] Ron Capik -- |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:
......snip.. How can I possibly get a virus that does not come through e-mail? Thanks, DM Ummm, just about everything has a backdoor [?] Later... Ron Capik cynic in training -- |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:15:50 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
wrote: How can I possibly get a virus that does not come through e-mail? Just to second ya, I've run my home machine in Win98SE on dialup forever without even a firewall. No virus scan and no virus' ever. I use text based Usenet and Email clients and don't even have spam problems except from friends' including me in mass mailings. Simple precautions like avoiding executables (.exe, .com, .scr, etc.) and Microsoft scripts (VB, etc.) are all that's really needed. No biggie. BUT!: if thou're on wideband, thou really, really need a firewall. And some common sense when the virii/Trojans ask for permissions. This is the toughest current thing for civilians, methinks. Friends with crippling or fatal virii (sometimes) admit to simply clicking OK when ZoneAlarm asks for permission for *anything*. BZZZTT. Thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: How can I possibly get a virus that does not come through e-mail? According to an interview I heard on NPR this morning the latest one that infects Win 2000 requires no net application, only a connection, in order to do it's dirty. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Agent 86" wrote in message news  On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:29:08 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: Kayte wrote: I was not saving it over the network; I was saving to my local drive. The remote synchronization of my drive caused a corruption in the file. That seems like a problem with the network software. Is this a XP 2003 Server-based system? Sounds more like a problem with policy. Client to server sync-ups should happen on logon. If the need to happen any other time (emergencies do happen), there should be plenty of notice & a reasonable estimate of when & how long should be provided. Absolutely. In this case you can demonstrate to upper management that IT's "cure" was worse than the dissease they were trying to prevent. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Morgan wrote ...
How can I possibly get a virus that does not come through e-mail? That is a dangerously naive view of your risks. You should keep better informed about the kinds of malware that is out there. There are now websites that can download and run undesirable code simply by going to the URL. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:21:18 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote: David Morgan wrote ... How can I possibly get a virus that does not come through e-mail? That is a dangerously naive view of your risks. You should keep better informed about the kinds of malware that is out there. There are now websites that can download and run undesirable code simply by going to the URL. Could you comment further on the infection path? Is it MSIE specific? Does it require VB /scripts enabled, etc.? Does it require that the web page itself be complicit? IOW, is an innocent site safe? Thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
Could you comment further on the infection path? Is it MSIE specific? Does it require VB /scripts enabled, etc.? I leave it to our professionals to deal with the details, but I believe it is this one... http://securityresponse.symantec.com...2.esbot.b.html Does it require that the web page itself be complicit? Yes, I believe the website must explicitly host/download the malware code. IOW, is an innocent site safe? Not sure. I have innoculated my 120 computers using MS05-039. Takes ~ 15 seconds/each to do the update. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:48:40 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote: "Chris Hornbeck" wrote ... Could you comment further on the infection path? Is it MSIE specific? Does it require VB /scripts enabled, etc.? I leave it to our professionals to deal with the details, but I believe it is this one... http://securityresponse.symantec.com...2.esbot.b.html Does it require that the web page itself be complicit? Yes, I believe the website must explicitly host/download the malware code. IOW, is an innocent site safe? Not sure. I have innoculated my 120 computers using MS05-039. Takes ~ 15 seconds/each to do the update. Thanks Richard. Here at home I'm "second star to the right, then straight on til morning" but my beloved day job is very vulnerable. Thanks for the heads-up! And, as always, thanks for everything, Chris Hornbeck |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Very frustrated with Mbox/Windows XP | Pro Audio | |||
| iPod network Aux interface? | Tech | |||
| 802.11b/g network interface for stereo? | Tech | |||
| Computer guys help needed- piping audio thru network.... | Pro Audio | |||
| p2p file share network access | General | |||
Linear Mode
