June 5, 2018 at 11:58 am
Thom A - Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:01 AMI know this particular user is a repeat offender for, but I feel they're getting worse. They've not even tried to solve the problem themselves, and they're not asking a question; just making a request (demand) for the solution: https://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/1966780/TSQl-Help-with-the-WHERE-CLAUSE-I-want-the-entire-records-set-as-output-or-just-the-ones-marked-in-2Maybe we should start charging users like this for our time. 🙂
Sometimes you just have to give them what they want. If they don't want to learn, their employer will find them out.
June 5, 2018 at 12:14 pm
Thom A - Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:01 AMI know this particular user is a repeat offender for, but I feel they're getting worse. They've not even tried to solve the problem themselves, and they're not asking a question; just making a request (demand) for the solution: https://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/1966780/TSQl-Help-with-the-WHERE-CLAUSE-I-want-the-entire-records-set-as-output-or-just-the-ones-marked-in-2Maybe we should start charging users like this for our time. 🙂
Sometimes I work on finding a good solution and never post it, while other times I just ignore that user. I'm not willing to help him pretend something that he isn't.
June 5, 2018 at 12:14 pm
Lynn Pettis - Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:58 AMThom A - Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:01 AMI know this particular user is a repeat offender for, but I feel they're getting worse. They've not even tried to solve the problem themselves, and they're not asking a question; just making a request (demand) for the solution: https://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/1966780/TSQl-Help-with-the-WHERE-CLAUSE-I-want-the-entire-records-set-as-output-or-just-the-ones-marked-in-2Maybe we should start charging users like this for our time. 🙂
Sometimes you just have to give them what they want. If they don't want to learn, their employer will find them out.
One would hope. I do sometimes think the employers are as much to blame as the employee sometimes. Poor employers promote poor employers. Of course the reverse is true as well. 🙂
Thom~
Excuse my typos and sometimes awful grammar. My fingers work faster than my brain does.
Larnu.uk
June 5, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Luis Cazares - Tuesday, June 5, 2018 12:14 PMThom A - Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:01 AMI know this particular user is a repeat offender for, but I feel they're getting worse. They've not even tried to solve the problem themselves, and they're not asking a question; just making a request (demand) for the solution: https://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/1966780/TSQl-Help-with-the-WHERE-CLAUSE-I-want-the-entire-records-set-as-output-or-just-the-ones-marked-in-2Maybe we should start charging users like this for our time. 🙂
Sometimes I work on finding a good solution and never post it, while other times I just ignore that user. I'm not willing to help him pretend something that he isn't.
I prefer to post something that illustrates a solution to their problem without being something that can be just copied or pasted.
June 6, 2018 at 1:56 am
Thom A - Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:01 AMI know this particular user is a repeat offender for, but I feel they're getting worse. They've not even tried to solve the problem themselves, and they're not asking a question; just making a request (demand) for the solution: https://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/1966780/TSQl-Help-with-the-WHERE-CLAUSE-I-want-the-entire-records-set-as-output-or-just-the-ones-marked-in-2Maybe we should start charging users like this for our time. 🙂
Sorry couldn't resist 😛
Far away is close at hand in the images of elsewhere.
Anon.
June 7, 2018 at 8:49 am
Ugh. A requirement that recently popped up: "Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography!"
OK, sure, no probl...
OK, it's set to disabled by GPO and I can't change it.
"Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography!"
Fine, fine, fine, I'll put in a ticket to get a *NEW* GPO created just for my servers (because the web servers aren't required to have it) that will let me enable it and go from there.
Oh, hey, look at that. SSRS is now broken. Well, OK, there's a MSDN blog with a fix.
Hmm. So Reporting Manager is working, but Reports is still broken, lets turn off FIPS and see. Yep, SSRS is working again.
So, let's see if we can get the requirement changed, or at least the severity of it not being enabled reduced so it's less of an issue on the boxes with SSRS...
"Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography and we shall NOT change the severity!"
Alright, alright, I get it...
Hmm, let's see. Maybe if I add the fix to the \Reports\web.config too, even though the posting doesn't mention that?
OK, what do you know, that seems to have done it.
In my home lab.
Let's try it in QA tomorrow...
Bloody PITA of mindless drones I have to put up with...
June 7, 2018 at 8:59 am
jasona.work - Thursday, June 7, 2018 8:49 AMUgh. A requirement that recently popped up: "Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography!"
OK, sure, no probl...
OK, it's set to disabled by GPO and I can't change it.
"Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography!"
Fine, fine, fine, I'll put in a ticket to get a *NEW* GPO created just for my servers (because the web servers aren't required to have it) that will let me enable it and go from there.
Oh, hey, look at that. SSRS is now broken. Well, OK, there's a MSDN blog with a fix.
Hmm. So Reporting Manager is working, but Reports is still broken, lets turn off FIPS and see. Yep, SSRS is working again.
So, let's see if we can get the requirement changed, or at least the severity of it not being enabled reduced so it's less of an issue on the boxes with SSRS...
"Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography and we shall NOT change the severity!"
Alright, alright, I get it...
Hmm, let's see. Maybe if I add the fix to the \Reports\web.config too, even though the posting doesn't mention that?
OK, what do you know, that seems to have done it.
In my home lab.
Let's try it in QA tomorrow...Bloody PITA of mindless drones I have to put up with...
I am assuming this a result of Government STIGs. I can't wait for these to start hitting us. At least then I know who to contact for help when they come to me to implement them. At this point, I have nothing to do with it.
June 7, 2018 at 9:20 am
Lynn Pettis - Thursday, June 7, 2018 8:59 AMjasona.work - Thursday, June 7, 2018 8:49 AMUgh. A requirement that recently popped up: "Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography!"
OK, sure, no probl...
OK, it's set to disabled by GPO and I can't change it.
"Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography!"
Fine, fine, fine, I'll put in a ticket to get a *NEW* GPO created just for my servers (because the web servers aren't required to have it) that will let me enable it and go from there.
Oh, hey, look at that. SSRS is now broken. Well, OK, there's a MSDN blog with a fix.
Hmm. So Reporting Manager is working, but Reports is still broken, lets turn off FIPS and see. Yep, SSRS is working again.
So, let's see if we can get the requirement changed, or at least the severity of it not being enabled reduced so it's less of an issue on the boxes with SSRS...
"Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography and we shall NOT change the severity!"
Alright, alright, I get it...
Hmm, let's see. Maybe if I add the fix to the \Reports\web.config too, even though the posting doesn't mention that?
OK, what do you know, that seems to have done it.
In my home lab.
Let's try it in QA tomorrow...Bloody PITA of mindless drones I have to put up with...
I am assuming this a result of Government STIGs. I can't wait for these to start hitting us. At least then I know who to contact for help when they come to me to implement them. At this point, I have nothing to do with it.
DING DING DING!
Yeah, the SQL 2014 Instance STIG. I tried posting a comment on the MSDN article to indicate that you also need to make the change in the \Reports\web.config, but for some reason it didn't take (or they moderate the comments and it's stuck there, which considering the post is from 2015...)
June 7, 2018 at 9:37 am
jasona.work - Thursday, June 7, 2018 9:20 AMLynn Pettis - Thursday, June 7, 2018 8:59 AMjasona.work - Thursday, June 7, 2018 8:49 AMUgh. A requirement that recently popped up: "Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography!"
OK, sure, no probl...
OK, it's set to disabled by GPO and I can't change it.
"Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography!"
Fine, fine, fine, I'll put in a ticket to get a *NEW* GPO created just for my servers (because the web servers aren't required to have it) that will let me enable it and go from there.
Oh, hey, look at that. SSRS is now broken. Well, OK, there's a MSDN blog with a fix.
Hmm. So Reporting Manager is working, but Reports is still broken, lets turn off FIPS and see. Yep, SSRS is working again.
So, let's see if we can get the requirement changed, or at least the severity of it not being enabled reduced so it's less of an issue on the boxes with SSRS...
"Thou must enable FIPS 140-2 cryptography and we shall NOT change the severity!"
Alright, alright, I get it...
Hmm, let's see. Maybe if I add the fix to the \Reports\web.config too, even though the posting doesn't mention that?
OK, what do you know, that seems to have done it.
In my home lab.
Let's try it in QA tomorrow...Bloody PITA of mindless drones I have to put up with...
I am assuming this a result of Government STIGs. I can't wait for these to start hitting us. At least then I know who to contact for help when they come to me to implement them. At this point, I have nothing to do with it.
DING DING DING!
Yeah, the SQL 2014 Instance STIG. I tried posting a comment on the MSDN article to indicate that you also need to make the change in the \Reports\web.config, but for some reason it didn't take (or they moderate the comments and it's stuck there, which considering the post is from 2015...)
You could also write your own blog post or SSC article.
June 7, 2018 at 10:27 am
Please write an article.
I know security items can be a PIA, and not saying this is needed or helpeful, but I do think that too often we ignore security for other convenience or effective purposes and it comes back to hurt us as an industry.
June 7, 2018 at 11:41 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Thursday, June 7, 2018 10:27 AMPlease write an article.I know security items can be a PIA, and not saying this is needed or helpeful, but I do think that too often we ignore security for other convenience or effective purposes and it comes back to hurt us as an industry.
I don't disagree about people often ignoring security for convenience or the like (guilty as charged,) I was more initially frustrated by the "tough patooties if it breaks something, we're not even going to add wording that it *MAY* break things" attitude. I think, though, I'm going to suggest to the STIG folks, that they perhaps indicate this, even if they don't include the link to the MS article on the resolution (although it'd be nice if they did.)
(Also, short article submitted)
June 7, 2018 at 11:45 am
Thanks, Jason
June 7, 2018 at 12:40 pm
jasona.work - Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:41 AMSteve Jones - SSC Editor - Thursday, June 7, 2018 10:27 AMPlease write an article.I know security items can be a PIA, and not saying this is needed or helpeful, but I do think that too often we ignore security for other convenience or effective purposes and it comes back to hurt us as an industry.
I don't disagree about people often ignoring security for convenience or the like (guilty as charged,) I was more initially frustrated by the "tough patooties if it breaks something, we're not even going to add wording that it *MAY* break things" attitude. I think, though, I'm going to suggest to the STIG folks, that they perhaps indicate this, even if they don't include the link to the MS article on the resolution (although it'd be nice if they did.)
(Also, short article submitted)
HA! The government doing anything to actually help?
😛
June 7, 2018 at 1:26 pm
Lynn Pettis - Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:40 PMjasona.work - Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:41 AMSteve Jones - SSC Editor - Thursday, June 7, 2018 10:27 AMPlease write an article.I know security items can be a PIA, and not saying this is needed or helpeful, but I do think that too often we ignore security for other convenience or effective purposes and it comes back to hurt us as an industry.
I don't disagree about people often ignoring security for convenience or the like (guilty as charged,) I was more initially frustrated by the "tough patooties if it breaks something, we're not even going to add wording that it *MAY* break things" attitude. I think, though, I'm going to suggest to the STIG folks, that they perhaps indicate this, even if they don't include the link to the MS article on the resolution (although it'd be nice if they did.)
(Also, short article submitted)
HA! The government doing anything to actually help?
😛
Hey! I've gotten changes made to the SQL 2012 STIG!
Heck, they darn near took the code I put together for setting up a SQL Audit instead of SQL Trace verbatim...
Didn't give credit though...
June 8, 2018 at 9:33 am
Michael L John
If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
To properly post on a forum:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/
Viewing 15 posts - 61,651 through 61,665 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply