[QUOTE=Scratch.;48216701]Mail updates came
[t]http://link-removed.xyz/i/2015/07/15-07-16_10-35-44.png[/t]
:dance:[/QUOTE]
Going to try and use Mail again after I ditched it on 10130 because of it not syncing at all
For some reason the live tile for Mail doesn't seem to update once the e-mails were read.
Haha holy shit update over network is great
Just downloaded 10240 from my desktop onto my tablet
[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;48214244]I guess it's because Microsoft know their own OS inside out so they can optimize the fuck out of it.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't give them as much of an advantage as you think it would.
We did it guys, welcome to Windows 10.
I just deleted my 10162 ISO today by accident with a Windows XP installer.
Fuck.
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;48218101]We did it guys, welcome to Windows 10.
I just deleted my 10162 ISO today by accident with a Windows XP installer.
Fuck.[/QUOTE]
I got a spare if I could find somewhere to upload it
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48218169]I got a spare if I could find somewhere to upload it[/QUOTE]
Nah I'm talking x86, found the ISO anyways
Update went great, no giant cursors for me! It did change the resolution on my second monitor for some reason though.
If I delete insider, I still get all future updates, right?
[QUOTE=Daemon White;48218450]If I delete [B]insider[/B], I still get all future updates, right?[/QUOTE]
Very vague
Windows Insider, the thing Tanktan did [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1409122&p=48214956&viewfull=1#post48214956]here[/url]
-snip- figured it out
[QUOTE=Daemon White;48218467]Windows Insider, the thing Tanktan did [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1409122&p=48214956&viewfull=1#post48214956]here[/url][/QUOTE]
Disabling Insider in settings is 'Stop Insider Builds"
You'll only get proper release builds, think the first one past July 29 would be next season
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
Talked about this yesterday.
But there's a cooler way to clean hard drives
[t]http://link-removed.xyz/i/2015/07/15-07-16_15-36-03.png[/t]
So about that Wifi sense thing.
I can't change the SSID (Because this breaks a fuckload of services at home). What Microsoft Servers to I have to block to stop this thing from working?
This is the one thing that completely stops me from using Windows 10 at home and at work.
Any use of Windows 10 PC's is banned in our company building until this is resolved.
When you install Windows and went into the advanced setup I'm pretty sure there was an option to not participate in sense
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48218660]When you install Windows and went into the advanced setup I'm pretty sure there was an option to not participate in sense[/QUOTE]
Thanks, this should solve the problem at home.
Is there anything I can do for the Work issue?
I can't ask every customer and employee in the building to disable this.
And Wifi SSID change is absolutely retarded.
Legal told me I am required to guarantee that this feature is banned with a 100% guarantee and I can't make changes to the existing network layout.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48218660]When you install Windows and went into the advanced setup I'm pretty sure there was an option to not participate in sense[/QUOTE]
Post Install:
Network & Internet > WiFi > Manage WiFi Settings
remember anyone with proper network access can share that network out to literally anyone over skype, facebook or outlook contacts
I trust these help docs that say that shared users cannot access other computers, devices or files stored on the network.
[QUOTE=kaukassus;48218681]Thanks, this should solve the problem at home.
Is there anything I can do for the Work issue?
I can't ask every customer and employee in the building to disable this.
And Wifi SSID change is absolutely retarded.
Legal told me I am required to guarantee that this feature is banned with a 100% guarantee and I can't make changes to the existing network layout.[/QUOTE]
If they would be domain PCs, I'm sure there will be a group policy setting. Otherwise, its entirely a system of trust. You can't disable features on systems that aren't yours, short of that SSID change. And I'm sure its a "sync" like service, so even if you managed to block those servers, once they join a different network, those settings are shared regardless.
That being said, I'm sure its only on networks that use PSK's. If they use some enterprise authentication it probably doesn't apply.
[QUOTE=Scratch.;48218691]I trust these help docs that say that shared users cannot access other computers, devices or files stored on the network.[/QUOTE]
That sounds like the Client PC is restricting itself, that's terribly insecure. So you're basically trusting the Client PC that it will restrict it's own network.
How long until someone finds a way to bypass this restriction? Network restrictions should never be done on the client PC, because this can always be bypassed.
[QUOTE=Demache;48218722]If they would be domain PCs, I'm sure there will be a group policy setting. Otherwise, its entirely a system of trust. You can't disable features on systems that aren't yours, short of that SSID change. And I'm sure its a "sync" like service, so even if you managed to block those servers, once they join a different network, those settings are shared regardless.
That being said, I'm sure its only on networks that use PSK's. If they use some enterprise authentication it probably doesn't apply.[/QUOTE]
I'll probably wait and see what other companies will do and then see if it makes any problems or not.
[quote]There's a lot of FUD & frankly inaccurate information floating around here.
When connecting to a password protected router you are given an UNCHECKED BY DEFAULT option to share the password with your friends. What this means is, the user can deliberately share the password they know.
This is just as secure as any other system because once you give a user a password they could share it if they chose. Nothing here is "automatic" no data is being proliferated without user consent. If your employees leak your password this way, then it's the same as leaking passwords otherwise.
Again this not an opt-in-by-default scenario. It requires a user knowing a password to actively choose to share for each router independently.[/quote]
if you're giving users wifi access, wifi sense has the same threat vectors as not having it
[QUOTE=jordguitar;48216369]The way it should work is that you leave the insider program, restart, and then put in your proper 10 key.
Just hold off on going out of the program until the end of the month.[/QUOTE]
But I upgraded directly from 7, I never had a key.
what do?
here kaukauss
quit bitching
"Enterprise networks that use 802.1X can't be shared. If you connect to one of these enterprise networks at work or somewhere else, those network credentials won't be shared with any of your contacts."
(i hope you use 802.1x)
[editline]15th July 2015[/editline]
[url]https://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/how-to/wp8/connectivity/wi-fi-sense-faq[/url]
expand "I'm concerned about sharing Wi-Fi networks. Can you tell me a little more?"
[editline]15th July 2015[/editline]
also they're treated separately in windows, windows will only give them direct network access
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48218772]if you're giving users wifi access, wifi sense has the same threat vectors as not having it[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of that. As far as I discussed it with Legal is that it has to do with the thing that it's done by the push of a button/checkbox.
Traditionally, User1 gives logon credentials to User2. This is giving explicit permission.
With this, User1 checks mark on User2's profile (or wherever that is). This is not giving explicit permission because you could have accidentally clicked it or whatever.
Yes, the attack vectors are the same, but as I have understood it, the Legal implications may be different in case something happens.
Traditionally, the person is liable for explicitly sharing confidental access.
But what if this can also happen by pushing a single button? Is the person liable for pushing that button? I mean that button is created by Microsoft, so it must be good right?
I have no Idea what implications this can have, but Legal seems worried by this.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48218772]if you're giving users wifi access, wifi sense has the same threat vectors as not having it[/QUOTE]
In his workplace's case, they are worried about the possibility, as having the option is just as risky as it being selected by default. After all, legal is the definition of CYA. However, using PSKs in an enterprise environment is basically only a step up from no/WEP encryption. Like I mentioned, PSKs are usually stored in plaintext on client systems.
However, the solution is exactly what I figured, which is use 802.1x for authentication.
Kaukassus should look into it if possible, of course I know the answer from the higher ups will be "lol no that costs money/is inconvenient!"
if your lawyers care that much about security
why the [I]fuck[/I] are you not using 802.1x
[editline]blazyd[/editline]
yes rate me dumb, when with PSK you have to revoke everyone's access and go to every single client and re-enter passwords if there's even the slightest chance of the key being compromised?????!???!?!?!?!?!?!?
802.1x: "oh i gave my password to gaysex69.tk" revoke that account
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48218789]
(i hope you use 802.1x)
[/QUOTE]
Sadly it does not.
I got into this company almost a year ago. Since I was here, I revised a good sized chunk of the infrastructure.
New Servers, Windows Server 2003 upgrade to Windows Server 2012R2
Exchange 2003 -> 2013
AD Upgrade and reorganisation
Proper RRAS Setup
But WLAN is one of the things that hasn't been touched by me yet, so it's still what it previously was before I joined the company. Then again, I'm employed as a Software Developer, so I'm surprised that I even had to do these things (We don't have a dedicated Sysadmin position).
ok so uh why is legal bitching to you
if they brought me on as a software dev, i'm not touching networking?
[QUOTE=kaukassus;48218825]
But what if this can also happen by pushing a single button?[/QUOTE]
It's almost impossible to do accidentally
You need to explicitly go into the Wifi sense section, click the network, then click share, THEN type the password
Actually, I'm going through my networks on my tablet.
Eduroam already says 'Can't Share' which is obvious as it's certificate based.
But Guest-Wireless (it's web-login version, no password/encryption) is also listed as Can't Share.
Obviously there's a way to block sense but, it's not well known I guess, as it's based off already existing shit.
Even 'Yes Optus Customer' some weird connection I have from a public area is even listed as such.
All of the personal networks are able to be shared
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
This took a while to write :v:
[QUOTE=kaukassus;48218873]Sadly it does not.
I got into this company almost a year ago. Since I was here, I revised a good sized chunk of the infrastructure.
New Servers, Windows Server 2003 upgrade to Windows Server 2012R2
Exchange 2003 -> 2013
AD Upgrade and reorganisation
Proper RRAS Setup
But WLAN is one of the things that hasn't been touched by me yet, so it's still what it previously was before I joined the company. Then again, I'm employed as a Software Developer, so I'm surprised that I even had to do these things (We don't have a dedicated Sysadmin position).[/QUOTE]
So basically if you didn't have a Swiss flagdog I would probably think you were my manager. You literally described him almost word for word.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48218878]ok so uh why is legal bitching to you
if they brought me on as a software dev, i'm not touching networking?[/QUOTE]
At my previous position as an apprentice in Software development, I was almost a full-time Sysadmin at work, because they didn't have time and knowledge to train Developers (I was the first Dev Apprentice there)
In Switzerland, we have the Dual education system, so I had 50% school, and 50% of my time was at work.
In School, I did learn Software Development, and at work, I did what the company required, and that was Sysadmin work, a lot of it.
From this I learned a lot of shit about Networks, Servers and the likes and the new company of course is aware of the knowledge I carry with me.
Since they usually used external companies to do the Sysadmin work, when I came around, they used me for these things to save money, and get better results, because these companies sometimes did a really horrible job at setting up these services and servers.
And now I'm here...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.