ICC logo IFAS logo

ICC Meeting:



A meeting of the ICC was held on Friday, May 13th, 2011 in the ICS conference room. The meeting was chaired and called to order by Steve Lasley at about 10:00 am.

PRESENT: Thirteen members participated.
Remote participants: David Bauldree, Bill Black, Allan Burrage, Dan Cromer, Francis Ferguson, Kevin Hill, Chris Leopold, Marvin Newman, Jonathan Potts, Mike Ryabin.
On-site participants: Dennis Brown, Andrew Carey, Wayne Hyde, and Steve Lasley.

STREAMING AUDIO: available here


Apparently, the connection between OCS and the Gateway was down again and Dan Cromer speculated that it could only be fixed via a reboot--which would necessarily kill on-going conferences and was unlikely. Steve wonders if Patrick Pettus might be able to schedule a maintenance boot of the equipment involved for the early morning preceding our meetings as a preventative measure. The alternative connection (which does not provide interaction really) is to view the stream via the web as detailed on our meetings page.

Agendas were distributed and the sign-up sheet was passed around.

Report from the chairman

Member news:

Steve had no membership changes to relate other than the fact that Rhiannon Pollard, a long-time ICC fan from Soil and Water Science, had left the ICC-L. Rhiannon was not an IT person per se, but had used our list to keep in touch with IFAS IT happenings.

Recap since last meeting:

As per his usual procedure, Steve pointed folks to the notes of the last meeting, without going into any details.

Videoconferencing and WAN discussion

[In order to make meeting participation more efficient for Patrick Pettus and James Moore, these two topics have been moved to reside at the top of our agendas.]

Videoconferencing topics (previous discussion)

End-user Scheduling (previous discussion)

Updates not available...


Steve had asked Patrick if he could participate but never received a response; Steve had remembered Dan Cromer saying the licenses were supposedly good only until May 15th in any case.

Dan responded that the software is available at \\ad.ufl.edu\ifas\software\movi but that usernames were required for use. Dan is purchasing 25 licenses for IFAS use (at $120 each one-time cost) and can provide an account for those who want to investigate whether or not this would be useful for their unit. Dan envisions it being most useful for conference rooms that have a laptop/projector combination and want to add in videoconferencing--perhaps using a CX5000 camera. Dan hopes that Lync will be able to support that without having to purchase a lot of licenses for that. Dan said that he will work with Patrick to get accounts for testing purposes.

Video Services is also looking into Tandberg Advanced Media Gateway which would provide hi-def support for Lync and OCS via the bridge.

Dan warned that Polycom is no longer providing support for their PVX software and new CPUs are not being recognized with no remedy coming. This will mark the beginning of the end for that software being widely useful. MOVI and Lifesize are two potential replacements.

Lync deployment (previous discussion)

Dan Cromer mentioned that he had met with John Madey (UF/CNS Telecom) and Tom Livoti (HealthNet) concerning Microsoft vs. Cisco for Unified Communications here at UF. Naturally, both of them were extremely reluctant to entertain the notion of Microsoft competing with their Cisco solution. Dan, however, pointed out to them that if the cost of the Cisco product is $11/phone and that of the Microsoft product is $2/phone, then perhaps we should consider a separate phone system. Dan suggested we look closely at the total cost of ownership before deciding one way or the other.

The current hold-up is that John Madey is developing a list of specifications at Tim Fitzpatrick's request; John already has the list developed by the tier 2 group in conjunction with OSG and discussed here last time. Once he gets his list to Tim and Tim says okay, we will have a small group taskforce to evaluate both products and grade them. The plan for moving ahead will arise out of that evaluation.

Andrew Carey asked if HSC is definitely going ahead with the Cisco solution for their part. Dan Cromer responded that HSC is going to go ahead with that and John and Tim are moving ahead with Cisco solution for themselves as well. They are considering this a normal evolution of the Cisco CallManager. Dan had responded to them that he believed it would be a natural evolution of the CallManager as well to consider the addition of the SIP trunks to Lync. They didn't respond to that, however.

Dan Cromer also made the point that if CNS dropped the phone charges down to $2/phone, then there would be no question about needing competing systems. Costs do matter, however.

Andrew commented that his understanding of the impetus for Lync was to save on long distance charges at our remote sites. He asked if the Cisco system would provide that incentive as well and Dan responded that it would. Dan Cromer mentioned that he has arranged for his Centrex phone ($26/month from AT&T) to be converted to a Cisco softphone ($11/month from CNS). If that works well, he plans to do that for the analog phones in Building 120 and then look at using this elsewhere.

These softphones work by registering MAC addresses to the CallManager and associating them with a phone number. There is no limit on how many devices could be registered for a particular number. Consequently, we could have one phone number for each extension office tied to multiple softphones at a particular office for sharing purposes (like a party-line to save on costs). That solution would likely work as well with the Cisco softphone as OCS.

Steve believes it will be interesting to see how big a role the new governance processes might play in these decisions, as our service providers seem to have already made up their minds on the solution they want to provide. Hopefully, cost considerations will play a factor and either CNS will reduce end-user costs for the Cisco solution or consider Microsoft as an additional option. Frankly, it seems at this point that the former might be the most we could hope for--but time will tell.

When Dan asked John Madey if he would be using the Cisco IP softphone (which is no longer being sold) or Cisco Unified Personal Communicator (CUPC), Dan was surprised to discover that CUPC is not even available yet. On the other hand, Dan would like to wait for when Lync SP1 comes out because that is the version which fully integrates with Macintosh and web access. That is the version we would want to compare with CUPC.

Mike Ryabin asked if all these discussions applied only to campus and Dan Cromer responded that this would affect everyone. Mike then asked if they would be allowed to retain their current phone numbers and Dan said "absolutely". Dan asked if Ft. Lauderdale was paying for their PRIs currently, because CNS is paying those now in order to make their VoIP phone service more attractive. This was begun with the recent Lake Alfred refresh and should be available to other RECs now as well. This was good news to Mike because he had previously tried to suggest getting the SIP trunks to route calls back to campus through the network, but CNS was not responsive to that suggestion. Dan suggested that Mike get in touch with John Madey about getting Ft. Lauderdale on-board with this now that CNS has changed their position on this.

Andrew Carey asked for clarification on whether any of the above discussion would affect or put on hold the upgrade to Lync. Dan responded that replacing OCS 2007 R2 with Lync is part of the standard planned upgrade process. CNS has that project on their "roadmap" for this summer and it would definitely be going ahead. This has been confirmed with Tim, as well as Iain Moffat and Barb Sedesse. Luis Molina wants to wait for Lync 2010 SP1 in any case.

Steve asked for speculation about Microsoft's acquisition of Skype. Dan Cromer pointed out that the purchase still requires regulatory approval; he also feels that making Skype and Lync interoperable will be technologically challenging and likely take quite some time, though he does expect that to happen. Chris Leopold said that he had discussed this with our new Microsoft rep and received confirmation that Microsoft was going to take Skype and try to "plug it into Lync".

WAN transition to CNS (previous discussion)

Updates from James Moore

James couldn't make it to the meeting today but sent the following update via e-mail:

Message from James Moore:
"Re: [ICC-L] ICC meeting 10AM Friday *at ICS*" Fri 5/13/2011 9:51 AM

I am still playing catch up from being on leave. I will be in meetings with the John Madey and the VoIP team today discussing VoIP pricing for Apopka, Homestead, Quincy & Immokalee.

Kevin Hill has the fiber install wrapped up in Immokalee. I finished negotiating vlans and the cross-connect yesterday. Router and FLR component in process.

I am ready to pull the trigger on the Verizon 3G / 4G connection (2) for the Austin Carey Memorial Forest. I received the paper work last week.

I will be in attendance at the next ICC meeting with a good summary update of where we are and a "what we have left type of rollup."

Steve asked Allan Burrage how the Lake Alfred upgrade was progressing. Allan did not hear the question for some reason, but Andrew Carey was able to fill in a few of the details. Andrew said that a Configuration Manager server was configured there as of yesterday; that server is tied into the IFAS Primary Site here on campus as a Child Site. This will be used to deploy Windows 7 SP1 locally. Andrew also mentioned that he believed their phone conversion is nearing completion; this means they are basically "full steam ahead" on the Active Directory migration.

When asked about the ConfigMan configuration, Andrew said that they had made some decisions based on upcoming architectural changes in Configuration Manager 2010 (currently in Beta 2). Lake Alfred has a distribution point (basically a glorified file server and TFTP PXE boot server) that synchronizes with the on-campus distribution point. This will allow local machines to PXE boot to that server and pull down the same images available to the Help Desk here.

Steve said he had spoken with Allan about the plan for the phone system and it sounded like they would have the "best of both worlds". As Steve understood things, they would be tied into UF's system but would retain their local numbers (CNS/Telecom is picking up the cost of the PRIs) as well as their local Call Manager Express box. Calls back to campus will be routed over the data network, removing those long distance charges.


myUFL changes on May 10th: affects on end-users (previous discussion)

Steve mentioned that he had not had any end-user question/complaints about this transition and asked if any of the other ICCers had anything to report on that. Dennis Brown mentioned that he did have one person who appeared to have the correct roles for accessing the travel portion of that system, but was not receiving the desired menu option; Dennis planned on following up on that later today.

Nick Smith had tried to raise some interest via the ICC in meeting the new browser requirements (see specifics for IE7, IE8, Firefox, and Safari) via GPO settings. Steve was in favor of that being done for Co-Managed provided it was carefully tested prior; in general, however, Steve tends to let such things be driven by need. If the number of support calls warrant the time spent on that, then he would certainly move in that direction. Andrew had pointed out that much of the configuration has to be done through registry setting within Group Policy Preferences (GPP) as Policy Settings would wipe out all of the users' current settings or prevent them from making future changes and adding additional entries. Steve had learned this the hard way as documented previously.

Andrew summed up by saying these settings can certainly be controlled via the Co-Managed GPO if everyone agreed that should be done.

New Secunia site license (previous discussion)

Updates not available...

Free Windows 7 Deployment Training for UF IT Staff (previous discussion)

Steve noted that a number of ICCers participated in some or all of this including David Bauldree, Dennis Brown, Allan Burrage, Andrew Carey, Francis Ferguson, Chris Leopold, and himself. Steve found it very useful and it reinvigorated his interesting in learning more about the Microsoft Deployment Toolkit. In particular, Steve finally started going through his copy of Johan Arwidmarks and Mikael Nystrom's "Deployment Fundamentals, Vol. 1". This book fills in a lot of the questions raised by the training sessions (and raises many more as well).

Steve has decided to utilize two separate deployment shares. The first one will be used with VMWare Workstation to build fully patched images of Win7x86 and Win7x64; currently Steve has a "suspend task sequence" worked into the build which allows him to customize the desktop (add the Computer icon) and IE (Home page and default search engine). He plans to include Office in the default builds, but since he is not fully committed to Office 2010 yet, he plans to keep separate images with either the 2007 or 2010 version for now. That will work out to four reference images to maintain overall.

Using VMs for the reference builds is definitely the way to go. Snapshots really save time with this whole process as they allow reversion to the "suspended task sequence" state previous to the last sysprep. Basically, you just get that snapshot running, add in any updates, save a new snapshot and resume the task sequence which runs sysprep then captures the new reference image.

The production builds will use one of the four reference builds. A quick edit of the x86 or x64 task sequences can set which reference image to use. Drivers are handled by creating a make/model driver folder structure and using a DriverGroup filter so the proper drivers are injected (see video). Deployment begins via WinPE boot off a UFD on the target machine. Separate UFDs will be needed to kick off x86 or x64 deployments. For flexibility, (and since he has to visit the box anyway because he is not using WDS) Steve did not go with a completely quiet install. During the deployment one is currently prompted for:

  • Credentials for attaching to the Distribution Share

    MDT User Credentials prompt

  • Task sequence selection (i.e., x86 or x64)

    MDT Task Sequence selection

    Steve's been working on x86 so far and only had that sequence available when the above screenshot was taken.

  • Machine name

    MDT Computer Name selection

  • Domain join info (am prestaging currently to control OU location, though you can easily add a drop-down list box of OUs to pick from)

    MDT Domain Join prompt

  • Applications to install

    MDT Applications selection

Once those initial details are handled, the remainder of the build proceeds automatically. Steve has only gone through the complete process on a single test machine so far and issues will no doubt arise, but he is very pleased with how this is working so far.

If this has piqued anyone's interest in MDT 2010, you might take a look at this Introduction to MDT 2010 Lite Touch video to get the basic idea. Steve would be glad to help anyone who might have further questions as well.

Update on domain policy and redirect duration (previous discussion)

Steve mentioned that the next ITPAC meeting has been scheduled for June 7th. [Note: this was later changed to June 20th.] Steve had been hoping Wendy Williams would be available to comment as she was appointed to run a sub-committee looking into this matter.

Dan Cromer wants to get an ITPAC recommendation on restricting use of the IFAS VPN.

Dan also wants to propose to ITPAC that we amend the IMM regarding "Computer Security, Support, and Operating Environment" to specify that unsecured WiFi access is prohibited. Steve asked how the new wireless access policy mentioned at our January meeting played into this. Dan responded that such access was still secured via a password; this new policy would simply prohibit the usage of wide-open access. Dan said that this is actually in the UF Acceptable Use policy with the "Users must not attempt to implement their own network infrastructure" item, but he wants this explicitly stated again within our own policies.

CNS working to implement NAC for UF wireless

This was initially announced about two and one-half weeks ago.

Message from the UF IT Security Team to NET-MANAGERS-L:
"[NETMGRS] UF wireless security checks start May 1" Mon 4/25/2011 11:00 AM

Please share this announcement with your users.

Starting May 1, 2011, big changes are in store for the university’s wireless network!

If your portable computer runs Microsoft Windows, it will need to clear a security check every seven days before it can connect to the UF wireless network. The security check will verify that your computer has current antivirus software and all Windows updates before you can use the UF wireless network.

Securing your computer protects you from identity theft, damage to your computer and files and also helps prevent harm to the university network.

If your Windows-based computer already has antivirus software and is set to install updates when Microsoft releases them, you will experience only about a 30 second delay when connecting to UF’s wireless network. If your computer passes the security checks, they will not run again for seven days. If the security check finds a problem with your computer, you will first have to install antivirus software or missing Windows updates before using the UF wireless network. Note: to run the security checks, your Windows-based computer must have Java or ActiveX installed and enabled.

The security check process begins on May 1, 2011. During Summer A, your computer will be allowed to connect even if it fails the security checks. However, if your computer does not have either Java or ActiveX controls installed, the security checks cannot run and your computer will be unable to connect to the UF wireless network.

Starting July 10, 2011, your computer will only connect to the UF wireless network if it passes security checks.

The security checks impact only Windows-based computers, and only when they attempt to connect to the UF wireless network. Computers not running Windows, such as Apple MacBooks, are not affected. Mobile phones are also unaffected by these changes.

This security check process is similar to checks performed on the Housing and Residence Education network and the Health Science Center network. To help set up your computer to pass the security checks, UF is providing a software application called CloudPath Xpress Connect that will configure your computer properly to run the security checks. If you run into problems, the UF Computing Help Desk is available to assist with the new wireless security check process. Call or email the Help Desk at (352)392-HELP (4357) or helpdesk@ufl.edu.

For more information on compliance with the new wireless security check process, or with any of the university’s information security policies and initiatives, visit the Security Web site.

If you have any questions about this email, please contact:

UF IT Security Team
(352) 392-2061

It was noted via the ICC-L that IFAS facilities off main campus would be excluded from this new policy. Kathy Bergsma also responded quickly to the CCC-L with the Cloudpath link which had been inadvertently omitted. Then, two weeks ago, the plans were altered and the implementation delayed:

Message from Kathy Bergsma to CCC-L:
"[CHANGE] Re: UF wireless security checks start May 1" Fri 4/29/2011 9:20 AM

The security checks for the wireless network will NOT be activated on Sunday as planned. The wireless network will work as it does today until further notice.

We decided to allow extra time to register update servers that need access through the NAC for their managed laptops. If you manage a WSUS, SCCM, ePO or other patch management system that you want to have access through the NAC, please let me know by next Thursday, May 5. We prefer to keep the list small, so please consider alternatives that will deliver updates to your users over the wire.

We also encountered a problem certifying users that pass the security checks for 7 days as promised. This feature of the product does not appear to work as promised. If the vendor is not able to resolve the problem, we will deploy the security checks without certification. This means that users will have to pass the security checks every time they connect, adding 10-30 seconds to the access time.

We have not set a new date for activation of the security checks, but I hope to be able to provide more information by the end of next week.

Dennis Brown mentioned having noticed via the Net-Managers list that the "session timeout on the Wireless authentication NAC system will be increased from 10 minutes to 1 hour." He was pleased as he expects this to make smartphone WiFi access less of a pain as users would not have to enter credentials so frequently.

UF Exchange Project updates (previous discussion)

Exchange 2010 migration status

Andrew said that they have been having conversations about moving IFAS to Exchange 2010. Earlier this week they were provided access to the Exchange 2010 Management Tools, which is a good first step. The next step will involve converting our distribution groups from Global to Universal as this is a requirement of Exchange Server 2010 SP1 [see "Caution" statement early-on in that page]. Andrew has a PS script to perform that conversion but wants to be cautious and needs to find the time to proceed on that.

The Exchange team will be at TechEd in Atlanta next week and Andrew has told them he will try to get that conversion done while they are gone.

Proofpoint configuration options changed

Dan Cromer had related via the ICC-L that the "high spam protection policy" has been added as an option to the ProofPoint anti-spam application:

ProofPoint High Spam Protection setting

With this setting, messages scored 80-100 are deleted while those scoring 50-79 go into quarantine. These changes have been documented (sans a new screenshot of the settings page as shown above) at http://www.mail.ufl.edu/proofpointsettings.shtml.

Centralized FAX service via Exchange (previous discussion)

Updates not available...

Sakai e-Learning System now in production (previous discussion)

Updates not available...

IT survey is coming (previous discussion)

We will keep this topic on our agendas until some resolution occurs.

Alternate IFAS domains in e-mail

Updates not available...

Electronic Copy - Print Output Cost Reduction program (previous discussion)

Updates not available...

myuf Market (previous discussion)

Steve wants to keep this on our agendas in case discussion seems warranted.

Split DNS solution for UFAD problems

Steve wants to keep this on the agenda for future reference.


New web cluster

Wayne Hyde mentioned that one hold up for Santos relates to getting enough virtual infrastructure space to support his project. Once we get the new virtual infrastructure in and running, then Santos will be able to go ahead with his stuff.

MPS/DC refresh

Mike Ryabin asked Andrew about when he might expect the new MPS to be implemented on the virtual server machine at Ft. Lauderdale. Andrew responded that the schedule was "fluid" at the moment. He is still trying to tackle those sites which are experiencing hardware failure of the older machines or are strapped for storage space. Andrew's best guess that this was still several months away for Ft. Lauderdale, however.

Mike related his main concern was that their phone system utilizes that DHCP server and he wants a smooth transition. Andrew assured him that the transition, when it comes, would be smooth.

Andrew said that as they began deploying the new MPS configurations to some of the bigger RECs, they realized that more space was required. A number of locations have one or more out-of-date servers which have been serving as supplemental file servers and it was decided that now was a good time to consolidate those into a more robust and centrally-managed solution. The beauty of the virtual architecture being used for MPS deployment now is that transitioning to a new hardware platform is much simpler.

These expanded MPS servers are being instituted at IRREC in Ft. Pierce, MREC in Apopka, NFREC in Quincy, TREC in Homestead, and GCREC in Balm/Wimauma. These larger MPS machines will range from 5.5TB to 7TB in storage using RAID 6 with 2TB drives. They were able to provide a bit more space with these because a back-up drive was not included; these sites have good connectivity and are being backed-up to Gainesville via DPM. Andrew noted that there are about seventeen MPS servers yet to be deployed overall and the current newly deployed MPS at these larger sites can be redeployed elsewhere once they are upgraded.

New SQL cluster

Wayne Hyde said that Matt Wilson has moved all the "easy" database over to the new cluster. They are still waiting on SharePoint to get off the old virtual SQLserver.

New virtual infrastructure being planned and spec'ed out

ITSA had submitted the quotes/lease proposal for approval for the new SAN and virtual infrastructure--including a 10 Gb network. The SAN portion is now being renegotiated, however. It was originally going to be Dell/Equallogic, but then EMC offered better price on the new VNX platform that is arguably better technology. The VNX platform supports SSDs which will allow us to utilize those in the SAN to support virtual desktop replicas. Wayne also intends to utilize SSDs for cache. These moves should greatly enhance performance. Our current SAN is the CLARiiON CX3 which was replaced by the CX4 and now the VNX; thus we will see a two generation jump ahead with this upgrade. There will be considerably more storage space for our file services so we will be able to consolidate those to a great extent.

The bottom line is that the new SAN will have more space and more speed for less money than originally planned with the Equallogic proposal. This means we can spend that savings on the virtual infrastructure itself. Consequently, there will be ten R710 servers with 192GB RAM each -- five for VDI, five for servers. That VDI expansion should allow opening VDI up to all of IFAS for certain purposes.

There will be two Juniper 48-port 10Gb switches. Wayne has 100 VMWare View licenses for our VDI which allows 100 concurrent users. Wayne wants to try to open up some pools to all ifas faculty/staff and is trying to get a list of software that is needed. Right now, for all VMs it will have as a base: acrobat reader, flash player, java, silverlight, microsoft office and stuff that is essentially free, including ArcGIS, R and JMP.

The new equipment will allow consolidation of most everything into three-four racks and should provide considerable savings on power and cooling.

Wayne reiterated that this new infrastructure will be quite capable of support any unit-server needs and there should be no reason for any unit to have to purchase their own servers as such things can be more cheaply and efficiently be supplied centrally.

IFAS WebDAV implementation

There continues to be no progress on the documentation which was to happen prior to announcement. Since this has never been formally announced, the matter remains on the agenda as a standing item.

Windows 7 Deployment via the WAIK, MS Deployment Toolkit 2010, USMT 4.0, WDS, and SCCM

Updates as available...

UF SCCM Support Group

Updates not available...

Exit processes, NMB and permission removal (prior discussion)

Updates not available...

Re-enabling the Windows firewall (prior discussion)

Updates not available...

Services Documentation: Is a Wiki the way? (prior discussion)

Updates not available...


Recording lectures for Distance Education (previous discussion)

Protected access for captured lectures

Steve would like to address this issue once Santos is available for discussion.

New DHCP reservation site created (previous discussion)

You are reminded that Santos Soler has created a new DHCP reservation site which you may use to request reservations. Dennis Brown mentioned having used the site successfully and Steve added that he had utilized it just yesterday. Santos prefers that we use this rather than e-mail him separately.

Restoration of back-ups on the file server

Wayne Hyde intends to document and announce proper usage as time permits.

Membership of ". IFAS-ICC" e-mail distribution group to be narrowed to ICC members only (previous discussion)

Steve will keep this as a standing item on our agendas for now as a reminder. The ICC distribution list is more targeted and restricted to IFAS IT support folks only.

IFAS efforts toward Green IT (previous discussion)

Updates not available...

Creating guest GatorLink accounts: singly or in bulk (prior discussion)

Steve had left this on the agenda in case further discussion was deemed warranted.

Can IFAS support DirectAccess in the future? (prior discussion)

Steve wants to keep this topic on our radar.

Moving away from the IFAS VPN service (previous discussion)

Dan Cromer would like to “greatly” reduce the number of IFAS users who use the IFAS service by shifting them to the CISCO Client or native L2TP connection hosted at CNS.

Dan noted that we get UFIRT security reports up to several times a day from people using the IFAS VPN with compromised/unpatched/vulnerable machines. Dan's main concern is the burden on Wayne as ISM. We also get a report from UF Security Team about the number of incidents that we have, which goes to Dr. Joyce, and Dan would like to cut down on the number of incidents.

Dan added that our incident response time and control of number of compromises is very high compared to others at UF, so kudos to Wayne and many in ICC for that.

Dan wants to set a date by which we are going to allow access to the IFAS VPN only via special justification. Access is currently allowed to "_ifas-users_autoGS" and we have ". ifas-vpn external users" and ". ifas-vpn blocked users" groups to handle exceptions. This would change to a " ifas-vpn allowed users" when more tightly controlled access was implemented.

Dan mentioned that he prefers the L2TP solution (as do most others) because nothing need be installed (configuration only) and he has found it works better for some things.

Steve wondered about IFAS starting to use CNS's departmental VPN tunnels where our users were provided a given range of VPN addresses. He asked if that would send these incidents right back into our lap. Wayne responded that CNS would kick people off the VPN service and not leave that up to Wayne to track them down.

Dennis pointed out that he still wants to know if his users are causing UFIRT notifications and Wayne suggested these would likely continue based on the username of whoever was connecting.

Dennis noted that CNS seems to prefer the Cisco client and asked if they intended to remove support for L2TP. Dan Cromer responded that CNS has nixed that idea since there is no Cisco client for quite a number of smartphones.

Steve also wanted to point out that the documentation on the Net Services web site covers XP and Vista but not Windows 7. The items that need setting have moved enough that new documentation is needed. Steve has asked Dan Miller who to contact about updating that. Steve's own re-write of those instructions follows:

  1. Go to the Start Button -> Control Panel
  2. Type "Network" in the search box at upper-right
  3. Under Network and Sharing Center, select "Set up a connection or network
  4. Select "Connect to a workplace" and click Next.
  5. If prompted select "Create a new connection."
  6. Select "Use my Internet Connection (VPN)".
  7. If prompted select "I'll set up an Internet connection later."
  8. For Internet Address type l2tp.vpn.ufl.edu
    Note:The first letter of the hostname is an "elle," not one).
  9. For Destination Name type "Gatorlink VPN" and check "Don't Connect Now".
  10. Click the "Next" button, then click the "Create" button, and finally the Close button (not Connect now).
  11. Click on the Network icon in the system tray at lower-right. It either looks like a monitor with a relatively enormous Ethernet cord/plug--or if you have wireless it is the "bars" icon.
  12. Right-click on "Gatorlink VPN" and click "Properties".
  13. Click on the "Security" Tab.
  14. Under Type of VPN, select "Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with IPsec".
  15. Click on "Advanced Settings" button.
  16. Check "Use pre-shared key for authentication". Type the key found at https://net-services.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/vpn/vpn-ext-passwd.cgi.
  17. Click "OK" to close the properties window. You are now ready to use the client.

Dan noted that this change to the IFAS VPN service will require proper notification and should likely go through ITPAC for approval. Based on our discussion, the ICC approves of this change provided sufficient notification is made prior.

VDI desktops as admin workstations (previous discussion)

Updates not available...

Wayne's Power Tools (prior discussion)

Updates not available...

Computer compliance tool in production (previous discussion)

Updates not available...

Folder permissioning on the IFAS file server

You are reminded to please take the time to read and implement the new standards. If you have any questions get with Wayne or Steve.

Disabling/deleting computer accounts based on computer password age

This is yet another matter for which finding time for implementation is proving difficult. Steve wants folks to remember that Andrew Carey has a good plan for dealing with this which he simply has had no time to address. In the meantime, it would be very good of each OU Admin to consider mimicking the proposed plan manually by keeping their own records and deleting any computer object which have been disabled for 90 or more days; Wayne's Power Tools can identify those. Steve has finally begun doing that for his own unit and it has made his view within ADUC much more agreeable.

Core Services status (previous discussion)

see the new virtual infrastructure section above...

ePO updates

Updates not available...

Status of SharePoint services (prior discussion)

IFAS migrating to centralized MOSS

Updates not available...

Public folder file deletion policies and procedures status

Nothing further was available on this topic at this time.

Patching updates...


The May Microsoft patches included two bulletins (one "Critical" and one "Important") covering several vulnerabilities for Microsoft Windows and Office.

McAfee provides podcasts on the highlights of each month's offerings and another podcast summary of these patches is provided by "Security Bulletins for the regular IT guy".


Adobe released yet another batch of out-of-band security patches for Adobe Reader and Acrobat. This was related to the Flash issue mentioned last month. Yes, Acrobat and Reader contain their very own copy of Flash. They might want to re-think things. Version 10 of Reader will be patched later because Adobe is assuming "Protected Mode", which most have to turn off to get things to work, will protect users.

...and just when one might think progress was occurring, yesterday they released ANOTHER security update for Flash Player. The activex version is now at [See details of remote patching solution.]


JRE 6 Update 25 was released during the middle of last week. This is a performance improvement, however, rather than a security update.

Wayne Hyde noted that IFAS has had quite a few Java vulnerability notices that are still not contained (10-15). Wayne urged OU Admins to follow-up on those notices and get the systems patched/rebuilt as necessary. Attending to those tickets on a timely basis will avoid Wayne having to set a DHCP restriction that would effectively disconnect those machines from the network.

MS Office News update

Steve had reported via the ICC distribution list back in mid-April concerning Print issues in Outlook 2007 after installing KB2509470. Microsoft has since released a hotfix.

Job Matrix Update status

This is here as a standing topic--no discussion this month.

Remedy system status (previous discussion)

Updates not available...

Other Topics

usage of the UF IT Alerts Dashboard page by IFAS

Updates not available...

RODC issues at remote sites (prior discussion)

Chris Leopold reported that UFAD has some sort of systemic issue that had actually been noticed by Mike Kanofsky about one year ago. A machine joined to UFAD should receive and apply its "IF-Co-Managed Computer" GPO from a local DC within its own site--depending on where it sits in the OU structure and that part seems to be working properly. On the user side, however, they are noticing that the "IF-CO-Managed User" GPOs often gets pulled from some other location. They believe this unexplained event explains why the User GPO application sometimes fails and drive mappings do not occur at times.

When drives fail to map on a machine, you can easily get diagnostic information. You just need to open a command prompt and type "gpresult /v > gpresults.txt". The resulting "gpresults.txt" file will contain a "Group Policy was applied from:" line telling you which DC was contacted for the user settings. When those are pulled from a remote DC, the "Login Scripts" policy is not applied for some reason.

The inconsistent nature of the problem has made it very difficult to track down the cause. Microsoft has been contacted about the issue by OSG and Chris has been accumulating data for them to examine. This has been happening both on- and off-campus apparently, but Chris believes this is the same problem that Kevin Hill began to notice with the deployment of the RODCs.

A current work-around is to run the login script manually from the netlogon share.

UAC settings egregious for users?

Updates not available...

PDF-Xchange (prior discussion)

Updates not available...

The meeting was adjourned early a little at about 11:30 AM.