|
So, from an infosec perspective, what tool would you use with the following requirements? Remote to users without much/any interaction from them. Can handle UAC escalations. Can connect to machines off the network/VPN. Doesn't cost a fortune.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
ConnectWise Control. On premise version is (or was, when it was called ScreenConnect) stupid cheap and perpetual license, also its one of if not the best solutions in this space by far. vvv Dunno what LMI stands for but ConnectWise Control is ScreenConnect post-Connectwise buyout. Sheep fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
isn't CW control just LMI? Or maybe it's screenconnect?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
The pricing on Connectwise looks good enough that I will explore switching my home LogMeIn account over. I use it for supporting family computers and if it's as easy to use and as reliable as LMI it would save me a good chunk of money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So, from an infosec perspective, what tool would you use with the following requirements? Bomgar hits all of those points except for the last one. We had a demo spun up that worked pretty well, remote vendor access requests would kick off an email to a department head or supervisor who had to click a link to approve access. But it was really expensive and ultimately got shot down by management.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
yeah bomgar is braindead simple, I have a client that uses it to serve their clients (hint: they're a bank so their clients are idiots) and it's super easy; also they have integration with LE, you just set it up from the admin interface and you don't need to pay for certs! But, yeah it costs a fuckton compared to everything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
I can't comment on the price, but Bomgar works well for my team. Session can elevate to permissions of the tech (ours by default due to some work from our image engineers), on or off VPN, file transfer either way, remote script execution or CLI, so on. User either clicks on a link we send them and runs the client-side app that downloads, or enters a 7 digit key we provide to an internal site.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So, from an infosec perspective, what tool would you use with the following requirements? We're using Dameware right now. It can handle off VPN clients if you set up the server component and expose that to the internet. It's still stupid and I hate it, but I wasn't able to convince anyone that paying for Bomgar was worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
MF_James posted:yeah bomgar is braindead simple, I have a client that uses it to serve their clients (hint: they're a bank so their clients are idiots) and it's super easy; also they have integration with LE, you just set it up from the admin interface and you don't need to pay for certs! I really, really wished we had gone with it. We even had it integrated with our existing Duo setup. I'm hopeful we'll get it in place in the next year or two, especially now that more and more people are working remotely. For those interested in the price I believe our quote was for something like $13k in year one, then $8k yearly thereafter, thats a rough guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So, from an infosec perspective, what tool would you use with the following requirements? I mean, this is kind of everything you would want in this kind of product so I would figure the last one would be a pipe dream
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Jesus, ConnectWise Control on-premise is a one-time fee of $2500 + $1000 for each additional technician past the 3 included, no client restrictions.Sickening posted:I mean, this is kind of everything you would want in this kind of product so I would figure the last one would be a pipe dream Nope, just $2500 + ($1000 x (IT person count - 3)). I know I sound like a ConnectWise shill but seriously, it's that good. Sheep fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Aug 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So, from an infosec perspective, what tool would you use with the following requirements? I do not know about the last, but the first 3 are handle 110% well by something called BOMGAR. Its the best thing since sliced bread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
We also use Bomgar. Not cheap but works well and is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
you can also try ligma (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Good news at my current job for once, the Linux team lead is supportive of me getting read access to the scripts and making QoL improvements and submitting them to him for review, since there are some problems with our available scripts. I'm way underpaid to be doing this, but gently caress it, it will make my life easier and gives me experience I can use to get somewhere that doesn't bait and switch me. Slacking off and being pissed off at my job doesn't do me any good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:We also use Bomgar. Not cheap but works well and is worth it. Some of the pricing on Bomgar is coming from the ability to archive video records of support sessions. That's crucial for our validated Manufacturing and QC systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Okay, so I am not insane in my thought being - this isn't a solved problem and if there's not a "TeamViewer, but better," I don't think folks using TeamViewer for their remote support options are necessarily making a bad decision. They have had a poor security record, but at this point I'm not sure there are many who haven't. We see massive security exploits constantly and the resolution is to patch. If Bomgar truly is 3-5x as expensive, for some people they are not going to get that choice. Getting management to shell out money for remote support tools isn't always easy. [Edit: Also, isn't this pretty much the same exact exploit that hit Zoom a few weeks ago?] [Edit2: Yes, it was - "A similar SMB-authentication attack vector was previously disclosed in Google Chrome, Zoom video conferencing app, and Signal messenger." ] Sheep posted:Jesus, ConnectWise Control on-premise is a one-time fee of $2500 + $1000 for each additional technician past the 3 included, no client restrictions. I don't think spinning up your own server is the right solution for this problem, and I am not sure I trust anything ConnectWise being "good," but it's been mentioned enough times in this thread that it is probably worth looking into. Internet Explorer fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:
Another vote for ConnectWise, though I don't know why you would spin up your own server - they have cloud instances. (I mean yes, it's an AWS server instance they manage, but whatever, it becomes not your problem). [Edit, I can't read] And it does session recording, though we don't use it so I don't remember if that's in the $400 tier or the next tier up, but it's definitely the cheapest option and has been pretty solid. It also integrates decently with Freshdesk (you can create and manage sessions directly from a ticket), and presumably others. Edit: I think the difference is that this was ScreenConnect and ConnectWise bought them, so that's why it's better than the rest of the CW set of software. Whether CW fucks it up remains to be seen, but at least for now it's a good product. Edit2: CW Standard costs $420/year/seat, doesn't have video recording, CW Premium costs $540/year/seat and does have video recording. And Connectwise View, i.e. turn a smartphone into a camera, which if you're trying to guide someone through physical troubleshooting could be a godsend. But, y'know, you could also just use FaceTime or something. SyNack Sassimov fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I don't think spinning up your own server is the right solution for this problem All the places I've worked are either heavily regulated (government) or have clients that would never let us de facto give external entities access to our desktops, which is basically what happens if you go with any cloud option. Anyways, for on-premise both Bomgar and CW are a one-time fee versus monthly/annually for cloud hosted so that's really all the justification necessary, especially for small/medium businesses. Just put it in a small EC2 instance. Super Soaker Party! posted:Edit: I think the difference is that this was ScreenConnect and ConnectWise bought them, so that's why it's better than the rest of the CW set of software. Whether CW fucks it up remains to be seen, but at least for now it's a good product. Yeah, I was skeptical when the buyout happened but that was 2015 and they haven't hosed it up yet so things are looking good so far. Sheep fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
I thought bomgar was an ongoing maintenance fee? I don't pay for it, client does but I assumed there was some sort of yearly fee for support/updates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
CW does have a fee for updates for the on-premise version edit: apparently it's some prorated setup: quote:Your original ScreenConnect purchase provides access to new releases and product support for one year (365 days). Upgrading is essentially a new purchase with applied trade-in credit. The current credit received is valued at 70% between years one and two, but exact values dependent upon license type and time elapsed since purchase. Sheep fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
I can't find the initial cost, but Bomgar (bought out by Beyond Trust, and is now Beyond Trust Remote Support) runs us about 17K a year just in maintenance costs looking at our last renewal. That's for a couple virtual appliances and maintenance for our 32 concurrent user licenses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Good news at my current job for once, the Linux team lead is supportive of me getting read access to the scripts and making QoL improvements and submitting them to him for review, since there are some problems with our available scripts. I'm way underpaid to be doing this, but gently caress it, it will make my life easier and gives me experience I can use to get somewhere that doesn't bait and switch me. Slacking off and being pissed off at my job doesn't do me any good. At least you're learning stuff that's useful and will make you more confident while interviewing for your next job. Did you hear back from your last interview already?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So, from an infosec perspective, what tool would you use with the following requirements? Bomgar is the answer. I am not sure why people think it's too expensive. poo poo works, and works good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Bomgar is the answer. I am not sure why people think it's too expensive. poo poo works, and works good. We had to drop Bomgar as there was no Outlook plug in we could use to schedule meetings (like Teams or Webex) and there was no conference bridge. Other than that is was pretty tight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:We had to drop Bomgar as there was no Outlook plug in we could use to schedule meetings (like Teams or Webex) and there was no conference bridge. Other than that is was pretty tight. Wait, isn't that kind of an unrealistic expectation of a service like this? Like, something doing everything bomgar does PLUS what you want without being poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:We had to drop Bomgar as there was no Outlook plug in we could use to schedule meetings (like Teams or Webex) and there was no conference bridge. Other than that is was pretty tight. What would these things be used for in the context of Bomgar?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:We had to drop Bomgar as there was no Outlook plug in we could use to schedule meetings (like Teams or Webex) and there was no conference bridge. Other than that is was pretty tight. The H-1B visa job description of software requirements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Wasn't my decision. we had been using Webex previously so it was easy to click the Outlook plug in, enter your attendees, time, click send and the Webex info auto populates. At the time (three years ago?) you had to manually drop in the link. My department doesn't do desktop support so often we'd have to have 3 or 4 parties on the call so that would be a different bridge line you'd have to send along, it just made a simple things harder. So we wanted to use it like webex where I schedule a call, them we remote in and fix or look at the issue. But since everyone here is saying price could be an issue and knowing my company and how they hate to spend money, the plug in thing was likely what they used as an excuse
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:We had to drop Bomgar as there was no Outlook plug in we could use to schedule meetings (like Teams or Webex) and there was no conference bridge. Other than that is was pretty tight. i've stopped driving my car because it didn't wash my dishes
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:i've stopped driving my car because it didn't wash my dishes The new Tesla's will do the dishes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Zotix posted:The new Tesla's will do the dishes. ...after the software patch sometime next year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Zotix posted:The new Tesla's will do the dishes. this is why they have panel gap issues, that's where the arms come out
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
We don't have bomgar but one of our Vendors uses it to support their product. It seems pretty fine by me. Go to assist is also good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
It's like Bonzo's management saw that Bomgar can technically host online meetings and why is it such a bad online meeting platform??! Bomgar owns, jump clients own, it's totally worth the stupid-expensive yearly fees. Even with a physical box you have to pay money out the nose for it but man do I love this software so drat much. If you want to use an online meeting platform as your remote support solution you might as well use Teams if you like misappropriated software. Most recent support call with Microsoft 365 they used a Teams meeting to provide remote support instead of the logmein they've always used at support.microsoft.com/help
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
Other than off VPN remoting, I found SCCM to be pretty decent. It’s definitely no bomgar but
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
Zotix posted:The new Tesla's will do the dishes. I refuse to google this and literally don’t know if you’re joking Tetramin posted:Other than off VPN remoting, I found SCCM to be pretty decent. It’s definitely no bomgar but Hahahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 00:14
|
|
Cat Army
|
LochNessMonster posted:At least you're learning stuff that's useful and will make you more confident while interviewing for your next job. Did you hear back from your last interview already? I did, didn't get the job. Haven't gotten any calls back from anything else except for one form letter rejection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:I'm a few pages behind because I have a coding exercise as homework for an interview that asked for an ansible+[vagrant or terraform] implementation to POC some open source thing that has an Ansible module. My recruiter told me they want me in for a multi-hour panel interview next week. Apparently they couldnt get my package to deploy* but they were impressed enough with my documentation that walked through my design decisions and tradeoffs. And thanks Methanar, 12 rats, and [other poster] for pointing out better ways to interact with the Ansible inventory. Never understimate the value of the M in MVP, I suppose?  *I assume its because I'm applying to an on-prem team, and I deployed to AWS in my POC. Maybe they didnt want to waste time signing up for a free account? I'm genuinely not sure why they couldnt make it work, that's the best guess I have. Happiness Commando fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Aug 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
I'm too lazy to find my old post to quote while I'm phone posting but basically I bombed a FAANG interview but had two others lined up. I finished those interview loops yesterday and heard back from everybody today. As expected, no offer from the big one, and one of the other two passed but I got an offer from the third. I know from previous threads that I should definitely counter, but I'm curious what people's opinions are on how honest I should be about other prospects. The recruiter at the place that made me an offer knew I was waiting on two other final decisions that both would have been high salary. I obviously don't plan to volunteer that I didn't receive offers from the other two, but if this recruiter asks me point blank I'm really torn on what I'd do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 05:24
|
|
