Search Results

Search found 3414 results on 137 pages for 'privacy policy'.

Page 13/137 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • How to be anonymous on IPV6 protocol by not using MAC address in EUI-64?

    - by iugamarian
    The IPV6 protocol has a feature called "Extended Unique Identifier" or EUI-64 witch in short uses the MAC address of the network card when choosing an IPV6 Adress. Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30CnqRK0GHE&NR=1 at 7:36 video time. If you want to be anonymous on the internet (so that nobody can find you when you download something, etc.) you need this EUI-64 to be bipassed in order for the MAC address not to be discovered by harmful third parties on the internet and for privacy. How do you avoid EUI-64 MAC address usage in IPV6 selection in Ubuntu? Also for DHCP IPV6?

    Read the article

  • Securing Facebook

    - by Promather
    Probably like most of you, I am concerned about the privacy of Facebook. Some people suggested that I use the HTTPS address instead. Unfortunately, many links in the HTTPS page itself link back to HTTP. So I am wondering whether it is possible in Ubuntu to redirect any request to: http://www.facebook.com/ to https://www.facebook.com/ This way I feel safer. If you also know the solution for Windows, it might be great to share (probably as a comment to my question rather than answer, as this forum is supposed to be for Ubuntu) so that I can share it with friends.

    Read the article

  • Sharepoint: Is it possible to automate the deployment of a custom CAS policy?

    - by user332133
    Hi all, I'm looking for a way to automate the deployment of a custom CAS policy in SharePoint. What i would like to achieve is the following: All assemblies that have been built and signed by our build server (with a secret key) should run in SharePoint under the 'higher than normal' trust level. Now I can manually edit the cas policy files to include something like this: <CodeGroup class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="MyPermissionSet" Name="[My Company public key]" Description="Grants all "> <IMembershipCondition class="StrongNameMembershipCondition" version="1" PublicKeyBlob="[public key goes here]" /> </CodeGroup> And that works great. However, we have several huge sharepoint farms, with many applications running on it. I'd like to avoid having to manually edit all policy files to include this xml snippet. Is there a way to automate this? For example, from a feature? With kind regards, Erwin van der Valk

    Read the article

  • processing of Group Policy failed only on 2008 Servers and Name Resolution failure on the current domain controller

    - by Ken Wolfrom
    Spent last 3 months doing a upgrade from 2003 domain to a 2008R2 domain. our last DC was rebuilt (5 total) and brought up on line. After it was put on line we have some 2008 and 2008R2 servers (10 now) getting these errors in the event logs. ERRORS Description: The processing of Group Policy failed. Windows could not resolve the user name. This could be caused by one of more of the following: a) Name Resolution failure on the current domain controller. b) Active Directory Replication Latency (an account created on another domain controller has not replicated to the current domain controller).\ Can duplicate this if we drop to command prompt and run GPUPDATE manually When our users attempt to do a \directory\shared access to shared drive on an affected server get this error.– “THERE ARE CURRETLY NO LOGON SERVER AVAIALBE TO SERICE THE LOGON REQUEST. This is only affecting the 2008 OS and it is a random set of abotu 10 servers out of some 30 with this OS. The Services on the machines are running Ok and login. Able to log in with domain/user to the consoles and via RDP. WE can log onto an affected machine, and can get to the \domainname\sysvol and can see the GPO's Have checked the replication topology of the domain and it states all servers can replicate with no errrors. We went back to the last DC, demoted it, removed DNS and then removed it from the domain and waited 24 hours and issue still persist. Picked one server, removed it from domain, reboooted, and added back to domain with no problems, but still has this behavior. bottom line is we have some servers that the domain will not let any UDP/client server apps or GPO's process ,but the tcp related items seeme to work fine, http, tcp calls, sql and oracle dbs's connect and process. Any inputs on some possible reasons for this issue and fixes. It is only affecting the 2008 servers on a 2008R2 domain.

    Read the article

  • WCF cross-domain policy security error

    - by George2
    Hello everyone, I am using VSTS 2008 + C# + WCF + .Net 3.5 + Silverlight 3.0. I host Silverlight control in an html page and debug it from VSTS 2008 (press F5, then run in VSTS 2008 built-in ASP.Net development web server), then call another WCF service (hosted in another machine running IIS 7.0 + Vista). The WCF service is very simple, just return a constant string to client. When invoking the WCF service from Silverlight, I got the following error message, An error occurred while trying to make a request to URI 'https://LabTest/Test.svc'. This could be due to attempting to access a service in a cross-domain way without a proper cross-domain policy in place, or a policy that is unsuitable for SOAP services. You may need to contact the owner of the service to publish a cross-domain policy file and to ensure it allows SOAP-related HTTP headers to be sent. This error may also be caused by using internal types in the web service proxy without using the InternalsVisibleToAttribute attribute. Please see the inner exception for more details. Here is the clientaccesspolicy.xml file, anything wrong? <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <access-policy> <cross-domain-access> <policy> <allow-from http-request-headers="*"> <domain uri="*"> </domain> </allow-from> <grant-to> <resource path="/" include-subpaths="true"></resource> </grant-to> </policy> </cross-domain-access> </access-policy> thanks in advance, George

    Read the article

  • Router 2wire, Slackware desktop in DMZ mode, iptables policy aginst ping, but still pingable

    - by skriatok
    I'm in DMZ mode, so I'm firewalling myself, stealthy all ok, but I get faulty test results from Shields Up that there are pings. Yesterday I couldn't make a connection to game servers work, because ping block was enabled (on the router). I disabled it, but this persists even due to my firewall. What is the connection between me and my router in DMZ mode (for my machine, there is bunch of others too behind router firewall)? When it allows router affecting if I'm pingable or not and if router has setting not blocking ping, rules in my iptables for this scenario do not work. Please ignore commented rules, I do uncomment them as I want. These two should do the job right? iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j DROP echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_all Here are my iptables: #!/bin/sh # Begin /bin/firewall-start # Insert connection-tracking modules (not needed if built into the kernel). #modprobe ip_tables #modprobe iptable_filter #modprobe ip_conntrack #modprobe ip_conntrack_ftp #modprobe ipt_state #modprobe ipt_LOG # allow local-only connections iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # free output on any interface to any ip for any service # (equal to -P ACCEPT) iptables -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT # permit answers on already established connections # and permit new connections related to established ones (eg active-ftp) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT #Gamespy&NWN #iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp -m multiport --ports 5120:5129 -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 6667 --tcp-flags SYN,RST,ACK SYN -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 28910 --tcp-flags SYN,RST,ACK SYN -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 29900 --tcp-flags SYN,RST,ACK SYN -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 29901 --tcp-flags SYN,RST,ACK SYN -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 29920 --tcp-flags SYN,RST,ACK SYN -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp -m multiport --ports 5120:5129 -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 6500 -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 27900 -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 27901 -j ACCEPT #iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 29910 -j ACCEPT # Log everything else: What's Windows' latest exploitable vulnerability? iptables -A INPUT -j LOG --log-prefix "FIREWALL:INPUT" # set a sane policy: everything not accepted > /dev/null iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD DROP iptables -P OUTPUT DROP iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j DROP # be verbose on dynamic ip-addresses (not needed in case of static IP) echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_dynaddr # disable ExplicitCongestionNotification - too many routers are still # ignorant echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn #ping death echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_all # If you are frequently accessing ftp-servers or enjoy chatting you might # notice certain delays because some implementations of these daemons have # the feature of querying an identd on your box for your username for # logging. Although there's really no harm in this, having an identd # running is not recommended because some implementations are known to be # vulnerable. # To avoid these delays you could reject the requests with a 'tcp-reset': #iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 113 -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset #iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 113 -m state --state RELATED -j ACCEPT # To log and drop invalid packets, mostly harmless packets that came in # after netfilter's timeout, sometimes scans: #iptables -I INPUT 1 -p tcp -m state --state INVALID -j LOG --log-prefix \ "FIREWALL:INVALID" #iptables -I INPUT 2 -p tcp -m state --state INVALID -j DROP # End /bin/firewall-start Active ruleset: bash-4.1# iptables -L -n -v Chain INPUT (policy DROP 38 packets, 2228 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 844 542K ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 38 2228 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 4 prefix `FIREWALL:INPUT' 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 38 2228 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 4 prefix `FIREWALL:INPUT' Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1158 111K ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Active ruleset: (after editing iptables into below sugested form) bash-4.1# iptables -L -n -v Chain INPUT (policy DROP 2567 packets, 172K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 49 4157 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 412K 441M ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 2567 172K LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 4 prefix `FIREWALL:INPUT' 0 0 DROP icmp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 icmp type 8 Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 312K packets, 25M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination ping and syslog simultaneous screenshots from phone (pinger) and from laptop (being pinged) http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4160051/slckwr/pingfrom%20mobile.jpg http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4160051/slckwr/tailsyslog.jpg

    Read the article

  • Bypass Facebook Social Reader Apps using Google Chrome Extension

    - by Gopinath
    One of the most annoying features of Facebook  is it’s Social Reader Apps that share automatically whatever your read, watch or listen online.  I don’t like to share what ever I do online to Facebook as I want my privacy. Few of  my friends knowingly or unknowingly are using Social Reader apps and their online activity is automatically posted to the wall. To read these articles or watch videos shared by Social Reader application I need to add the application and allow it to automatically post. I don’t like Social Reader Apps and if you are one like me, here is a Google Chrome browser plugin that allows us to bypass Social Reader Apps. The extension Facebook Unsocial Reader smartly rewrites Facebook links in such a way that you will be able to access content of links without adding Social Reader Apps to your account. To rewrite the links, the extension cleverly uses Google I’m Feeling Lucky service and searches for the article’s title. The first search result of Google is almost perfect in identifying the original article link. If you are a heavy Facebook user and concerned about using Social Reader Apps, this plugin is must to have. Photo (cc) Josh Hallett. Facebook Unsocial Reader Extension for Google Chrome

    Read the article

  • Why was Oracle Enterprise Taxation Management renamed to Oracle Enterprise Taxation and Policy Management?

    - by Paula Speranza-Hadley
    Ø       Some of you may wonder why we changed the product name from Oracle Enterpraise Taxation Manament (ETM) to Oracle Enterprise and Policy Management(ETPM).   When Oracle added a limited use license for Oracle Policy Automation to the Oracle Enterprise Taxation Management license, the license was re-named to Oracle Enterprise Taxation and Policy Management.  Ø     When referring to versions 2.2 and prior, the proper name is Oracle Enterprise Taxation Management (ETM) Ø     When referring to versions 2.3 and later, the proper name is Oracle Enterprise and Policy Management (ETPM) Ø     To take advantage of the limited use license for Oracle Policy Automation, customers must transition from the ETM license to the ETPM license.  However, they can remain on their ETM license if they are not going to take advantage of Oracle Policy Automation features.  

    Read the article

  • Blocking popups and ads

    - by user74364
    I'm having a fight with ads, popups and tracking cookies. But i'm having some issues. Software used: Chromium 18.0.1025.168 Extensions used: Adblock Plus (Beta)1.2 AdBlock+ Element Hiding Helper1.1.9.18 Better Pop Up Blocker2.1.6 Ghostery3.0.0 With this configuration, i'm always getting this error: Warning: This extension failed to modify a network request because the modification conflicted with another extension. I know if i disable "better popup", this goes away. It's perfectly normal, due to those extensions trying to block the same things. Problem is, i can't live without all of them! Can anyone advise me about some good configuration? Can't live without adblock plus, because i hate ads. Betterpopup blocker is essential too (believe me, chrome doesn't block a lot of popups, and i have a website or 2 that can proove that.) And ghostery is a must... i can't bare the idea of being tracked all the time by some companies. So i'm kinda lost here! everything is needed, but they conflict with each other. i mean, it has to exist a perfect combination out there, i know i'm not the only one hating the privacy issues nowadays! really thankful for any tips guys

    Read the article

  • network policy + WPA enterprise (tkip) Windows 2008 R2

    - by Aceth
    hi I've attempted the following guide and in a bit of a pickle. http://techblog.mirabito.net.au/?p=87 My main goal is to have a username / password based wireless authentication with active directory integration. I keep getting the error Network Policy Server denied access to a user. Contact the Network Policy Server administrator for more information. User: Security ID: domain\rhysbeta Account Name: rhysbeta Account Domain: domain Fully Qualified Account Name: domain\rhysbeta Client Machine: Security ID: NULL SID Account Name: - Fully Qualified Account Name: - OS-Version: - Called Station Identifier: 00-12-BF-00-71-3C:wirelessname Calling Station Identifier: 00-23-76-5D-1E-31 NAS: NAS IPv4 Address: 0.0.0.0 NAS IPv6 Address: - NAS Identifier: - NAS Port-Type: Wireless - IEEE 802.11 NAS Port: 2 RADIUS Client: Client Friendly Name: Belkin54g Client IP Address: x.x.x.10 Authentication Details: Connection Request Policy Name: Secure Wireless Connections Network Policy Name: Secure Wireless Connections Authentication Provider: Windows Authentication Server: srvr.example.com Authentication Type: EAP EAP Type: - Account Session Identifier: - Logging Results: Accounting information was written to the local log file. Reason Code: 22 Reason: The client could not be authenticated because the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Type cannot be processed by the server. ` I would love to have it so that non domain devices

    Read the article

  • Disabling LDAP Signing on Windows PDC in Local Policy

    - by Golmaal
    I just tripped over my own feet it seems. Playing around on a Windows 2008 R2 server (set up as domain controller), I was intrigued by certain warning event (event id 2886) which says: "To enhance the security of directory servers, you can configure both Active Directory Domain Services (AD DS) and Active Directory Lightweight Directory Services (AD LDS) to require signed Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) binds." So I thoughtlessly did some Googling and set the relevant policies which enforce LDAP signing. Now I don't remember but I may have done that using Local Policy. Now I have setup a pfsense box which must authenticate AD users via LDAP. While the firewall can communicate over secure channel, it is difficult to manage the same for other packages such as Squid and SquidGuard. So now I have to disable i.e. undo those policy changes. The problem is that they are greyed out! The policies in question are LDAP server signing and LDAP client signing. I don't remember what I did but when I access these policies from Local Policy editor on the server, they are set to "Require Signing" and are greyed out. The same policies can still be set via Default Domain Controller option in Group Policy editor. So how can I reset these greyed out policies? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to sanely configure security policy in Tomcat 6

    - by Chas Emerick
    I'm using Tomcat 6.0.24, as packaged for Ubuntu Karmic. The default security policy of Ubuntu's Tomcat package is pretty stringent, but appears straightforward. In /var/lib/tomcat6/conf/policy.d, there are a variety of files that establish default policy. Worth noting at the start: I've not changed the stock tomcat install at all -- no new jars into its common lib directory(ies), no server.xml changes, etc. Putting the .war file in the webapps directory is the only deployment action. the web application I'm deploying fails with thousands of access denials under this default policy (as reported to the log thanks to the -Djava.security.debug="access,stack,failure" system property). turning off the security manager entirely results in no errors whatsoever, and proper app functionality What I'd like to do is add an application-specific security policy file to the policy.d directory, which seems to be the recommended practice. I added this to policy.d/100myapp.policy (as a starting point -- I would like to eventually trim back the granted permissions to only what the app actually needs): grant codeBase "file:${catalina.base}/webapps/ROOT.war" { permission java.security.AllPermission; }; grant codeBase "file:${catalina.base}/webapps/ROOT/-" { permission java.security.AllPermission; }; grant codeBase "file:${catalina.base}/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/-" { permission java.security.AllPermission; }; grant codeBase "file:${catalina.base}/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/lib/-" { permission java.security.AllPermission; }; grant codeBase "file:${catalina.base}/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/classes/-" { permission java.security.AllPermission; }; Note the thrashing around attempting to find the right codeBase declaration. I think that's likely my fundamental problem. Anyway, the above (really only the first two grants appear to have any effect) almost works: the thousands of access denials are gone, and I'm left with just one. Relevant stack trace: java.security.AccessControlException: access denied (java.io.FilePermission /var/lib/tomcat6/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/classes/com/foo/some-file-here.txt read) java.security.AccessControlContext.checkPermission(AccessControlContext.java:323) java.security.AccessController.checkPermission(AccessController.java:546) java.lang.SecurityManager.checkPermission(SecurityManager.java:532) java.lang.SecurityManager.checkRead(SecurityManager.java:871) java.io.File.exists(File.java:731) org.apache.naming.resources.FileDirContext.file(FileDirContext.java:785) org.apache.naming.resources.FileDirContext.lookup(FileDirContext.java:206) org.apache.naming.resources.ProxyDirContext.lookup(ProxyDirContext.java:299) org.apache.catalina.loader.WebappClassLoader.findResourceInternal(WebappClassLoader.java:1937) org.apache.catalina.loader.WebappClassLoader.findResource(WebappClassLoader.java:973) org.apache.catalina.loader.WebappClassLoader.getResource(WebappClassLoader.java:1108) java.lang.ClassLoader.getResource(ClassLoader.java:973) I'm pretty convinced that the actual file that's triggering the denial is irrelevant -- it's just some properties file that we check for optional configuration parameters. What's interesting is that: it doesn't exist in this context the fact that the file doesn't exist ends up throwing a security exception, rather than java.io.File.exists() simply returning false (although I suppose that's just a matter of the semantics of the read permission). Another workaround (besides just disabling the security manager in tomcat) is to add an open-ended permission to my policy file: grant { permission java.security.AllPermission; }; I presume this is functionally equivalent to turning off the security manager. I suppose I must be getting the codeBase declaration in my grants subtly wrong, but I'm not seeing it at the moment.

    Read the article

  • How to have a policy class implement a virtual function?

    - by dehmann
    I'm trying to design a policy-based class, where a certain interface is implemented by the policy itself, so the class derives from the policy, which itself is a template (I got this kind of thinking from Alexandrescu's book): #include <iostream> #include <vector> class TestInterface { public: virtual void test() = 0; }; class TestImpl1 { public: void test() {std::cerr << "Impl1" << std::endl;} }; template<class TestPolicy> class Foo : public TestInterface, TestPolicy { }; Then, in the main() function, I call test() on (potentially) various different objects that all implement the same interface: int main() { std::vector<TestInterface*> foos; foos.push_back(new Foo<TestImpl1>()); foos[0]->test(); delete foos[0]; return 0; } It doesn't compile, though, because the following virtual functions are pure within ‘Foo<TestImpl1>’: virtual void TestInterface::test() I thought TestInterface::test() is implemented because we derive from TestImpl1?

    Read the article

  • Oracle Delivers Oracle Social Services Suite

    - by michael.seback
    Oracle Delivers Oracle Social Services Suite with New Releases of Siebel CRM Public Sector 8.2 and Oracle Policy Automation 10 Continuing its leadership and commitment to provide key innovations specifically created for social services agencies, Oracle today released the new Oracle Social Services Suite that includes updated versions of Oracle's Siebel CRM Public Sector 8.2 and Oracle Policy Automation 10. "Oracle's commitment to our social services customers is indisputable with the introduction of Oracle Social Services Suite and the latest innovations from Oracle's Siebel CRM Public Sector 8.2 and Oracle Policy Automation 10," said Anthony Lye, Senior Vice President of CRM, Oracle. "Social service agencies have not only many of the most complex jobs to perform with limited time and funding, but also some of the most important for our society, especially when children are involved. The technology advances Oracle provides will help these agencies increase their own efficiency and save costs, while helping to improve the outcome for their clients." read more

    Read the article

  • Sonicwall NAT Policy Loopback

    - by John
    I have an issue and am pretty perplexed over it. I have a sonicwall and its setup with NAT polices and reflexive nat for an internal web server. That is, only 2 policies, no loopback policy, and the internal clients can access the web server by public ip no problems. Now, on another connection, another sonicwall, i have the exact same setup for another web server, with exact same policies (obviously different IP's) and the internal clients can't access the internal website by its public IP without creating the loopback policy. Maybe on the first one I've overlooked it, but I don't see any loopback what so ever and its working fine. My question is, does anyone know why the first one works like this but the second one needs the loopback policy? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Enable roaming profile from group policy

    - by Rob Nicholson
    I've had a reasonable look around the AD policies but am I right in saying the only place that you can enable & define the group policy location is by editing the user, i.e. there isn't a group policy setting to (say) "Set the profile location to \myserver\users\%username%\profile" for all users in group XYZ? I suspect this might be because of chicken & egg, i.e. group policy is applied after the profile has been loaded and therefore can't specify the location. Cheers, Rob.

    Read the article

  • Session Update from IASA 2010

    - by [email protected]
    Below: Tom Kristensen, senior vice president at Marsh US Consumer, and Roger Soppe, CLU, LUTCF, senior director of insurance strategy, Oracle Insurance. Tom and Roger participated in a panel discussion on policy administration systems this week at IASA 2010. This week was the 82nd Annual IASA Educational Conference & Business Show held in Grapevine, Texas. While attending the conference, I had the pleasure of serving as a panelist in one of many of the outstanding sessions conducted this year. The session - entitled "Achieving Business Agility and Promoting Growth with a Modern Policy Administration System" - included industry experts Steve Forte from OneShield, Mike Sciole of IFG Companies, and Tom Kristensen, senior vice president at Marsh US Consumer. The session was conducted as a panel discussion and focused on how insurers can leverage best practices to mitigate risk while enabling rapid product innovation through a modern policy administration system. The panelists offered insight into business and technical challenges for both Life & Annuity and Property & Casualty carriers. The session had three primary learning objectives: Identifying how replacing a legacy system with a more modern policy administration solution can deliver agility and growth Identifying how processes and system should be re-engineered or replaced in order to improve speed-to-market and product support Uncovering how to leverage best practices to mitigate risk during a migration to a new platform Tom Kristensen, who is an industry veteran with over 20 years of experience, was able was able to offer a unique perspective as a business process outsourcer (BPO). Marsh US Consumer is currently implementing both the Oracle Insurance Policy Administration solution and the Oracle Revenue Management and Billing platform while at the same time implementing a new BPO customer. Tom offered insight on the need to replace their aging systems and Marsh's ability to drive new products and processes with a modern solution. As a best practice, their current project has empowered their business users to play a major role in both the requirements gathering and configuration phases. Tom stated that working with a modern solution has also enabled his organization to use a more agile implementation methodology and get hands-on experience with the software earlier in the project. He also indicated that Marsh was encouraged by how quickly it will be able to implement new products, which is another major advantage of a modern rules-based system. One of the more interesting issues was raised by an audience member who asked, "With all the vendor solutions available in North American and across Europe, what is going to make some of them more successful than others and help ensure their long term success?" Panelist Mike Sciole, IFG Companies suggested that carriers do their due diligence and follow a structured evaluation process focusing on vendors who demonstrate they have the "cash to invest in long term R&D" and evaluate audited annual statements for verification. Other panelists suggested that the vendor space will continue to evolve and those with a strong strategy focused on the insurance industry and a solid roadmap will likely separate themselves from the rest. The session concluded with the panelists offering advice about not being afraid to evaluate new modern systems. While migrating to a new platform can be challenging and is typically only undertaken every 15+ years by carriers, the ability to rapidly deploy and manage new products, create consistent processes to better service customers, and the ability to manage their business more effectively, transparently and securely are well worth the effort. Roger A.Soppe, CLU, LUTCF, is the Senior Director of Insurance Strategy, Oracle Insurance.

    Read the article

  • How to overcome Local Group Policy Editor's 1023 character limit?

    - by Louis
    I want to reorder the SSL Cipher Suite Order applied as part of KB2919355, prioritizing the forward secrecy suites above all else. Trying to do this with gpedit at Computer Configuration Administrative Templates Network SSL Configuration Settings SSL Cipher Suite Order is a problem because the new list goes over the tool's character limit. Is there anyway to overcome this limit so I don't have to keep the current priority or omit something from the list?

    Read the article

  • ATI Radeon HD 6870 Driver fails to install default-policy.sh does not support version

    - by Rogue Coder
    I'm running Ubuntu 11.04 Beta, with everything updated completely. I'm using Ubuntu Classic, because Unity fails to run, supposedly because of my video card. The drivers for the Radeon HD 6870 series is apparently lacking, but I found a post stating the newest version has full support for Ubuntu Natty Narwhal. That post is slightly old, so i grabbed 11.3 for Ubuntu x86 off the ATI website. When I run the installation program, I receive the following error: > ./ati-driver-installer-11-3-x86.x86_64.run Created directory fglrx-install.uREFoO Verifying archive integrity... All good. Uncompressing ATI Catalyst(TM) Proprietary Driver-8.831.2......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ===================================================================== ATI Technologies Catalyst(TM) Proprietary Driver Installer/Packager ===================================================================== Error: ./default_policy.sh does not support version default:v2:i686:lib::none:2.6.38-8-generic-pae:; make sure that the version is being correctly set by --iscurrentdistro ===================================================================== ATI Technologies Catalyst(TM) Proprietary Driver Installer/Packager ===================================================================== Error: ./default_policy.sh does not support version default:v2:i686:lib::none:2.6.38-8-generic-pae:; make sure that the version is being correctly set by --iscurrentdistro Removing temporary directory: fglrx-install.uREFoO > I would love to get the latest ATI drivers working so that I can try out Unity!

    Read the article

  • Proper policy for user setup

    - by Dave Long
    I am still fairly new to linux hosting and am currently working on some policies for our production ubuntu servers. The servers are public facing webservers with ssh access from the public network and database servers with ssh access from the internal private network. We are a small hosting company so in the past with windows servers we used one user account and one password that each of us used internally. Anyone outside of the company who needed to access the server for FTP or anything else had their own user account. Is that okay to do in the linux world, or would most people recommend using individual accounts for each person who needs to access the server?

    Read the article

  • Apply Group Policy to Remote Desktop Services users but not when they log on to their local system

    - by Kevin Murray
    Running Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2 with Remote Desktop Services role. I want to hide the servers drives using a GPO, but not the users local drives when they are logged on to their local system. Using a GPO, I went to "User Configuration - Policies - Administrative Template - Windows Components - Windows Explorer" and enabled "Hide these specified drives in My Computer" and "Prevent access to drives from My Computer" and in both used "Restrict all drives". Then under "Security Filtering" for the GPO, I restricted it to the system running Remote Desktop Services and the specific users who will be using RDS. I then applied the GPO to our domain and it worked a little too well. Not only was I successful in getting the GPO to work for RDS users, but it also affected those same users at their local systems as well. I've tried everything I can think of, but can't figure out how to apply this just to the RDS but not at their local system. What am I missing?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >