 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know busines is booming when...
...you discover that the lab is completely empty, and the entire lab
staff are standing around the lab office openly surfing ebay and
chatting amoungst themselves. Even the project managers.
o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...you discover that the lab is completely empty, and the entire lab staff
> are standing around the lab office openly surfing ebay and chatting
> amoungst themselves. Even the project managers.
At least they are not surfing monster.co.uk :-)
Send round an email saying that you are having problems with internet
bandwidth, and people should be reminded not to use the internet for
personal reasons. Block ebay and other sites you see people using for
personal stuff, and when they complain ask them to fill in a form detailing
the business justification for using that site, signed by their manager :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> At least they are not surfing monster.co.uk :-)
Actually the jobs section of New Scientist, but hey... ;-)
> Send round an email saying that you are having problems with internet
> bandwidth, and people should be reminded not to use the internet for
> personal reasons.
Well, that's true enough.
> Block ebay and other sites you see people using for
> personal stuff
Oh if only I had the power to do that! >:-D
> and when they complain ask them to fill in a form
> detailing the business justification for using that site, signed by
> their manager :-)
Hee... I won't how long it would take for our lab directory to demand
that I unblock Facebook? (He spends 20% of his day surfing it. The other
80% is of course spent standing outside smoking... Nobody likes that guy.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Block ebay and other sites you see people using for personal stuff
>
> Oh if only I had the power to do that! >:-D
Most medium sized and larger companies I've seen have some sort of website
filtering, mainly to prevent their employees getting illegal material or
viruses into their company.
As a first step, you could monitor the internet traffic and rank the volume
by domain name - if facebook.com and ebay.co.uk come out top then I think
you have a good business case to implement some sort of filter software :-)
It's only fair for the rest of the employees who are trying to use it for
business purposes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Most medium sized and larger companies I've seen have some sort of
> website filtering, mainly to prevent their employees getting illegal
> material or viruses into their company.
Agreed.
> As a first step, you could monitor the internet traffic and rank the
> volume by domain name - if facebook.com and ebay.co.uk come out top then
> I think you have a good business case to implement some sort of filter
> software :-) It's only fair for the rest of the employees who are trying
> to use it for business purposes...
First I'd have to have a way to monitor Internet traffic...
(And secondly, I rather suspect news.povray.org might come out tops, so
maybe this isn't such a hot idea after all!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> Most medium sized and larger companies I've seen have some sort of
>> website filtering, mainly to prevent their employees getting illegal
>> material or viruses into their company.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> As a first step, you could monitor the internet traffic and rank the
>> volume by domain name - if facebook.com and ebay.co.uk come out top
>> then I think you have a good business case to implement some sort of
>> filter software :-) It's only fair for the rest of the employees who
>> are trying to use it for business purposes...
>
> First I'd have to have a way to monitor Internet traffic...
>
> (And secondly, I rather suspect news.povray.org might come out tops, so
> maybe this isn't such a hot idea after all!)
The best - and worst - about being the only one who takes care of the
network is that you know when a sniffer or filter is set up - because
you set it up ;-)
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> First I'd have to have a way to monitor Internet traffic...
>>
>> (And secondly, I rather suspect news.povray.org might come out tops,
>> so maybe this isn't such a hot idea after all!)
>
>
> The best - and worst - about being the only one who takes care of the
> network is that you know when a sniffer or filter is set up - because
> you set it up ;-)
Hmm... LOL!
Actually, IIRC the last time I tried this (many years ago) the top site
in terms of traffic was www.knightsofold.com or something wierd like
that, with all traffic coming from just one machine on the LAN. It was
16% of our total bandwidth usage. And povray.org wasn't even on the
chart. (But that was before I became the Mascot...)
Currently it's not possible for me to do any sniffing except for
broadcast traffic. It's completely possible to reconfigure the network
switches, but I don't have access to them. I'm only the tea boy, after
all...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:48d101d4$1@news.povray.org...
> Currently it's not possible for me to do any sniffing except for broadcast
> traffic. It's completely possible to reconfigure the network switches, but
> I don't have access to them. I'm only the tea boy, after all...
What about on the internet gateway? Don't you have access to that server?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Currently it's not possible for me to do any sniffing except for
>> broadcast traffic. It's completely possible to reconfigure the network
>> switches, but I don't have access to them. I'm only the tea boy, after
>> all...
>
> What about on the internet gateway? Don't you have access to that server?
The Internet gateway is a Cisco router. I don't have the password - and
frankly, if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Currently it's not possible for me to do any sniffing except for
>>> broadcast traffic. It's completely possible to reconfigure the
>>> network switches, but I don't have access to them. I'm only the tea
>>> boy, after all...
>>
>> What about on the internet gateway? Don't you have access to that server?
>
> The Internet gateway is a Cisco router. I don't have the password - and
> frankly, if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it.
How many physical connections from your internal network to your
internet gateway - the Cisco router?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The Internet gateway is a Cisco router. I don't have the password -
>> and frankly, if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
>
> How many physical connections from your internal network to your
> internet gateway - the Cisco router?
Just one.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> The Internet gateway is a Cisco router. I don't have the password -
>>> and frankly, if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>
>>
>> How many physical connections from your internal network to your
>> internet gateway - the Cisco router?
>
> Just one.
>
Get an old hub and put on the line.
then run a patch from hub to a computer running a packet sniffer
current hookup
SWITCH-----------------------CISCO ROUTER
sniffer hookup
SWITCH------------HUB------------CISCO ROUTER
!
!
SNIFFER
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> Get an old hub and put on the line.
>
> then run a patch from hub to a computer running a packet sniffer
If I ever get keen enough, this is the way to solve it.
For now, I'm not that bothered. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin a écrit :
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> The Internet gateway is a Cisco router. I don't have the password -
>>>> and frankly, if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> How many physical connections from your internal network to your
>>> internet gateway - the Cisco router?
>>
>> Just one.
>>
>
> Get an old hub and put on the line.
>
> then run a patch from hub to a computer running a packet sniffer
>
>
>
>
> current hookup
>
> SWITCH-----------------------CISCO ROUTER
>
>
> sniffer hookup
>
> SWITCH------------HUB------------CISCO ROUTER
> !
> !
> SNIFFER
>
>
>
Be sure to put a cross-over cable between the hub and the switch!
This being said, unless Andrew doesn't care about his job, I wouldn't
recommend playing around with the network like that.
Problem 1: Both the switch and router are probably set to full duplex.
If the sniffer or hub sends packets, it may cause collisions that
would look very suspicious on a full duplex link (I'm assuming that one
of the reasons to go to Cisco hardware 2 years ago was for remote
management)
Problem 2: If they are serious about security, the switch will be
configured to allow only one mac address (the router's) and any packet
transmitted by the sniffer PC or hub would cause the port to alarm or
shutdown.
Problem 3: the unpluging of the router and connection to the hub might
be enough to send an alert to the Powers-That-Be(tm).
Chances are they already have network usage stats anyway.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque nous illumina en ce 2008-09-20 14:45 -->
> Tom Austin a écrit :
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> The Internet gateway is a Cisco router. I don't have the password -
>>>>> and frankly, if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many physical connections from your internal network to your
>>>> internet gateway - the Cisco router?
>>>
>>> Just one.
>>>
>>
>> Get an old hub and put on the line.
>>
>> then run a patch from hub to a computer running a packet sniffer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> current hookup
>>
>> SWITCH-----------------------CISCO ROUTER
>>
>>
>> sniffer hookup
>>
>> SWITCH------------HUB------------CISCO ROUTER
>> !
>> !
>> SNIFFER
>>
>>
>>
>
> Be sure to put a cross-over cable between the hub and the switch!
>
> This being said, unless Andrew doesn't care about his job, I wouldn't
> recommend playing around with the network like that.
>
> Problem 1: Both the switch and router are probably set to full duplex.
> If the sniffer or hub sends packets, it may cause collisions that
> would look very suspicious on a full duplex link (I'm assuming that one
> of the reasons to go to Cisco hardware 2 years ago was for remote
> management)
>
> Problem 2: If they are serious about security, the switch will be
> configured to allow only one mac address (the router's) and any packet
> transmitted by the sniffer PC or hub would cause the port to alarm or
> shutdown.
>
> Problem 3: the unpluging of the router and connection to the hub might
> be enough to send an alert to the Powers-That-Be(tm).
>
> Chances are they already have network usage stats anyway.
>
Normaly, when you use a hub, switch or router, you don't need a crossover cable.
The crossover is done by the hub/switch/router. Crossover cables are used to
dirrectly connect 2 computer by an ethernet cable.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you have been raytracing for too long when the animation you render
will be finished after yourself.
Urs Holzer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain a écrit :
> Francois Labreque nous illumina en ce 2008-09-20 14:45 -->
>> Tom Austin a écrit :
>>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>>> The Internet gateway is a Cisco router. I don't have the password
>>>>>> - and frankly, if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How many physical connections from your internal network to your
>>>>> internet gateway - the Cisco router?
>>>>
>>>> Just one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Get an old hub and put on the line.
>>>
>>> then run a patch from hub to a computer running a packet sniffer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> current hookup
>>>
>>> SWITCH-----------------------CISCO ROUTER
>>>
>>>
>>> sniffer hookup
>>>
>>> SWITCH------------HUB------------CISCO ROUTER
>>> !
>>> !
>>> SNIFFER
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Be sure to put a cross-over cable between the hub and the switch!
>>
>> This being said, unless Andrew doesn't care about his job, I wouldn't
>> recommend playing around with the network like that.
>>
>> Problem 1: Both the switch and router are probably set to full
>> duplex. If the sniffer or hub sends packets, it may cause
>> collisions that would look very suspicious on a full duplex link (I'm
>> assuming that one of the reasons to go to Cisco hardware 2 years ago
>> was for remote management)
>>
>> Problem 2: If they are serious about security, the switch will be
>> configured to allow only one mac address (the router's) and any packet
>> transmitted by the sniffer PC or hub would cause the port to alarm or
>> shutdown.
>>
>> Problem 3: the unpluging of the router and connection to the hub might
>> be enough to send an alert to the Powers-That-Be(tm).
>>
>> Chances are they already have network usage stats anyway.
>>
> Normaly, when you use a hub, switch or router, you don't need a
> crossover cable. The crossover is done by the hub/switch/router.
> Crossover cables are used to dirrectly connect 2 computer by an ethernet
> cable.
>
Cisco Catalyst switches - which is want Andrew said they were installing
in his office a few years ago - do not do that as they expect whoever
installs them to know what they are doing and cable the things through a
cable-management plant where punching down straight-through or
cross-over connections offers more flexibility.
Auto-MDI/MDIX hubs and switches are for home offices where people
usually do not have extra cables lying around, or do not even know the
difference.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque wrote:
> Be sure to put a cross-over cable between the hub and the switch!
>
> This being said, unless Andrew doesn't care about his job, I wouldn't
> recommend playing around with the network like that.
>
> Problem 1: Both the switch and router are probably set to full duplex.
> If the sniffer or hub sends packets, it may cause collisions that
> would look very suspicious on a full duplex link (I'm assuming that one
> of the reasons to go to Cisco hardware 2 years ago was for remote
> management)
>
IIRC it is possible to sniff invisibly (not a pun). Somewhere at home I
have the Snort Cookbook and I'm sure it has a description of how to do
it. I'll post here if I ever find it amongst the couple of thousand
books we have at home.
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Be sure to put a cross-over cable between the hub and the switch!
>>
>> This being said, unless Andrew doesn't care about his job, I wouldn't
>> recommend playing around with the network like that.
>>
>> Problem 1: Both the switch and router are probably set to full
>> duplex. If the sniffer or hub sends packets, it may cause
>> collisions that would look very suspicious on a full duplex link (I'm
>> assuming that one of the reasons to go to Cisco hardware 2 years ago
>> was for remote management)
>>
> IIRC it is possible to sniff invisibly (not a pun). Somewhere at home I
> have the Snort Cookbook and I'm sure it has a description of how to do
> it. I'll post here if I ever find it amongst the couple of thousand
> books we have at home.
>
> John
http://www.snort.org/docs/tap/
Not quite what I was looking for, but this might work
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John a écrit :
> Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
> IIRC it is possible to sniff invisibly (not a pun).
There are many ways it can be done. I was just saying that playing in
the wiring closet when you're not supposed to can get you fired.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
