The DMZ

Benoit Esnard

08:50

watchme

09:36

I have heard that there is a security issue with VLAN 1 (I don't know)... does anybody know what my teacher meant be this?^^

Anonymous

Security issue with VLAN 1?

Anonymous

Did he expand on what meant by that?

Anonymous

VLAN 1 is the default VLAN used for management, on a Switch, for example, all ports will be in VLAN 1. However, "security issue with VLAN 1" is incredibly broad.

Anonymous

Is he referring to VLAN hopping by any chance?

watchme

09:52

maybe... I've read this answer:

https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/32737/why-should-the-native-vlan-never-be-used

an there it is mentioned that, when native VLAN is VLAN 1 - so not configured otherwisely, somebody can listen to it by plugging into an unused (with default setting left) port. Therefore he has access to the management VLAN where he can also start a SSH-Session or is able to capture pakets I don't want him to capture. But how can he get access to the management VLAN when he has access to the native VLAN!? How is this related!? Management VLAN can be 20 and…

Anonymous

Yes, so by default ports will be on VLAN 1 which is also the management VLAN.

Anonymous

If the switch wasn't configured correctly and someone had physical access to it.

Anonymous

They could connect their laptop to a port (which would be in VLAN1 due to misconfiguration)

Anonymous

Then they would have free rain over the device.

Anonymous

VLANs are used for network segregation.

Anonymous

09:55

You don't want all your switch ports to be in the management VLAN which is why you have a SEPERATE VLAN for management.

Anonymous

I believe thats what hes describimg.

Anonymous

But all of that is only possible if the switch is poorly configured and the attacker had physical access.

Anonymous

There are MULTIPLE ways to stop such a thing.

Anonymous

Port locks, shutting down unused ports and putting them in a no access vlan, not keeping everything in the same vlan. Cabinets with locks, etc, etc, etc,/

watchme

"They would have free rain over the device" because the attacker can send every management packet he wishes for right?

Anonymous

09:59

Well, if you're on the management VLAN then you control the switch.

Anonymous

It all depends on how the network around that switch is configured. But theoretically, if the configuration is poor from the management VLAN you could just hop around the network as you wished.

Anonymous

The configuration would have to be incredibly poor for such a case because you would run into credential problems.

Anonymous

As that user has said: "the native VLAN is VLAN 1"

Anonymous

In a poor configuration people could have the native VLAN as the management VLAN.

Anonymous

That is the problem.

Anonymous

10:03

Being on the native vlan is still a problem. But being on the management VLAN just by plugging yourself into the switch is more of a problem.

Anonymous

"ou should change the native VLAN from being VLAN 1 to a new VLAN that you create. The native VLAN is used for a lot of management data such as DTP, VTP and CDP frames and also BPDU’s for spanning tree."

Anonymous

If you read the accepted answer that should address your questions.

watchme

I somehow cannot imagine a management VLAN^^
I just know that there are different data VLANs (which the users send data through), native vlans (for control-traffic (VTP, CDP, ...)) and the default vlan.

But where is the management VLAN? I have never seen a command "switchport management vlan 30" or so....

... if you know what I mean...

Ohh... but on many sites, the management VLAN is described as a seperate VLAN O.o

Anonymous

On Cisco devices, VLAN1 is used for management things.

Anonymous

But VLAN1 is also the native VLAN.

watchme

10:05

always?

Anonymous

Yes.

Anonymous

Which is why you want to change the native vlan to something different.

watchme

Oh ok! :D
I thought one has to change the management vlan^^

Anonymous

No.

watchme

ok yes I understand

Anonymous

10:06

VLAN1 is native but it's also used for management things on the device e.g: "DTP, VTP and CDP frames and also BPDU’s for spanning tree"

Anonymous

And that is the problem. That is why you change the native to something else so that people cannot just plug inot the switch and be on a VLAN that passes management traffic :D

Tom K.

sup dudes

watchme

That text confused me a bit...

Oh I am just beginning at learning network-stuff... I see there is much much more...

@TomK. hello :P

Anonymous

Yeah so the problem is.

Anonymous

On a Cisco device the native is also 1.

Anonymous

10:15

AFAIK most switches follow the same suit. the problem comes when 1 is by default used for management traffic also.

Anonymous

So if I walk up to your badly configured switch and plug into port 10.

Anonymous

I will be on VLAN 1 the native.

Anonymous

But I will also be on the VLAN that passes management traffic.

Anonymous

That is what your prof. is describing.

Anonymous

It's easily avoidable, you just change the native VLAN to be something else.

Anonymous

10:16

And leave 1 for management traffic.

Anonymous

And don't leave unused ports open.

Anonymous

It takes less than five seconds to shut a port down.l

Anonymous

^ When I say shut it down I mean admin down it.

Anonymous

Make sure it is "shut" not just "not connected"

watchme

yeah.. the problem isn't really solved by changing the native VLAN then,right... but by not leaving unused ports open...

yeah administratively down

Anonymous

10:19

Well yes the problem is solved by changing the native vlan.

Anonymous

Because if you change the native to 15.

Anonymous

And leave VLAN 1 for management.

Anonymous

If they plug into a port they will go to 15 not 1.

Anonymous

But admin downing ports is the best thing you can do in reality because then the only way they're coming up is if you tell them to come up.

Anonymous

One step further would be port-sec. And another step for physical would be port locks.

Anonymous

10:21

Even further put the swithc in a cab with a lock.

Anonymous

I see what you mean with the native VLAN though.

Anonymous

You're technically correct. But you still don't want one to be the native.

Anonymous

It's just best to leave that for management and make the native something different.

watchme

Yeah I haven't seen the relation between the 2 :D But your last 3 sentences made me feel secure about what I thought :D!

Thanks @JoshuaJones

What do you do for a living? Are you hired as a security expert? or network admin?

Anonymous

Self-proclaimed youngest network engineer.

Anonymous

10:26

It was actually a bad explanation but I am at work, lol.

Anonymous

Alternatively you could just not use 1 all together.

Anonymous

For example at work a common setup for our networks is 100 is management, 10 is native and 1 is unused.

Anonymous

So we would connect over 100 essentially, 10 would trunk and 1 would be just not in use for anything at all, all port shut down no access other than ones in use and ones in use assigned to their correct VLAN and not just left.

Anonymous

Even if we did leave ports open they'd be on 1 which is unused so would be useless for an attacker.

Anonymous

@TomK. And, hi.

watchme

10:33

But how do you set the management on VLAN 100? Or are just all computer of admins on the VLAN 100 and connect over that (somehow)?

Anonymous

When I say "management VLAN" what I am actually referring to is technically not a real thing.

Anonymous

What that means is "management VLAN" isn't anything special nor is it a command.

Anonymous

It is just the VLAN you decide you want to connect to the device on.

Anonymous

So say I created VLAN 100.

watchme

And you just connect do devices over it

Anonymous

10:36

And assigned it the IP 192.168.0.1/24

Anonymous

If I wanted to connect to the switch I would so via that IP.

Anonymous

Then VLAN 10 would be used as my trunk.

Anonymous

There is no such thing as "management VLAN" it's just... Network lingo?

Anonymous

#

Anonymous

"Keep in mind: The management VLAN is a concept. It is conceptual. It's not a "real" entity. It's nothing more than a VLAN that you create in order to configure an SVI with an ip address in order to manage the switch."

Anonymous

10:39

It is a concept.

Anonymous

A "management vlan" is just a vlan.

Anonymous

It functions like every other VLAN you create.

Anonymous

Its nothing more.

watchme

ok yes... an then I start for instance a SSH-Session to 192.168.0.1 (Which is in the same VLAN as my machine ... VLAN 100)

Anonymous

Yeah so. The most basic way of thinking about it is, you need to configure your switch how do you achieve that? Create a VLAN, give it an IP there you go.

Anonymous

10:41

That is the most simple way, it's nothing more than a networking concept that has become a standard to configure on a switch. One of the first things you configure would be that management access so once it's on the network you can SSH to it :D

Anonymous

(Obviously you would need to enable SSH as well, haha)

watchme

Ok well... now everything makes sense

Anonymous

learningnetwork.cisco.com/thread/64462

Anonymous

The top two answers are great answers! Second one has a visual.

Anonymous

But yes, native is a real thing, management is not it is purely conceptual.

Anonymous

10:46

#NetworkingIsFun (Psst. it's really not) :p

watchme

It was also a bit confusing when my teacher said that frames in the native vlan are untagged... because... when they are in the native vlan... they are... tagged... right

Anonymous

networkdirection.net/Tagged%2C+Untagged%2C+and+Native+VLANs

watchme

Yea... its even more fun when you really know a lot of stuff (VLAN is really really (REALLY) basic...), but learning about it is cool too :P. I just know a bit about telecommunication and TCP/IP, but VLANs are a bit new

Anonymous

"In Cisco LAN switch environments the native VLAN is typically untagged on 802.1Q trunk ports"

Anonymous

To answer your Q, your prof. is correct.

Anonymous

10:50

However; you shouldn't leave them untagged.

Anonymous

prevent against crafted 802.1Q double-tagged packets from traversing VLANs.

Anonymous

Oops forgot to include speech marks.

Anonymous

You should be tagging native VLAN traffic to prevent exactly what I posted.

Anonymous

If you read the network direction page I sent it will teach you all about VLANS.

watchme

Wow this is a great page!

Anonymous

10:53

Yeah it's pretty good.

Anonymous

In-short, native VLAN traffic is not tagged by default you need to go out of your way to make sure it is tagged however.

watchme

When a unicast-frame with the tag "VLAN 20" arrives at a switch - how does the switch forward this frame when he doesn't know the destination-MAC? Does he send a broadcast (except to the incoming port)?

Anonymous

Well if a switch hasn't learned a MAC yet it will just flood the ports.

Anonymous

And it will then save the MAC to it's CAM table obviously.

Anonymous

This is a good answer - networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/29321/… more detailed then my two sentences.

Anonymous

11:01

Good article on ARP - omnisecu.com/tcpip/address-resolution-protocol-arp.php

Anonymous

For the L3 stuff :D

Anonymous

L3 = Layer 3 by the way.

Anonymous

Of OSI.

Anonymous

Best way to learn all of this stuff is to setup some switches and do it.

Anonymous

And a router.

Anonymous

11:07

Get a router and two switches and configure "router on a stick"

Anonymous

firewall.cx/cisco-technical-knowledgebase/cisco-routers/…

Anonymous

I suggest getting two switches, one router. Setting up SSH management access to all three devices, disabling Telnet, changing the native VLAN from VLAN1, setting up a few VLANs for some "fake departments" perhaps VLAN20, 30, 40 for those.

Anonymous

Then just following that link for how to setup router on a stick.

watchme

Should work with packet-tracer...

Anonymous

Yes it will work with packet tracer.

Anonymous

11:09

Having physical kit is always BETTER.

Anonymous

But yes Packet Tracer will work.

Anonymous

If you know how to use it, I'd advise GNS3 but if not just stick with PT.

Anonymous

GNS3 can be a very big pain to setup & get used to, etc.

Anonymous

And on PT you can add the pcs they have as well so you can test the connectivity :D

watchme

Yeah... You need IOS-Software for GNS3 unfortunately (I mean, my teacher would give it to me, but I don't know how much work it is)

Anonymous

11:10

^

Anonymous

Yes.

Anonymous

So if you go on PT and setup a router & two switches.

Anonymous

Create three IP ranges for those devices.

Anonymous

Setup a few VLANS.

Anonymous

Setup SSH access for all three.

Anonymous

11:11

Setup a trunk for the traffic.

Anonymous

Then put some pcs on one switch and some pcs on the other test connectivity.

Anonymous

BUT MAKE SURE THEY'RE DIFFERENT RANGES.

Anonymous

If you didn't know already if two devices are on the same subnet its all L2.

watchme

OK

Anonymous

So if you don't use different subnets all you're doing is passing frames, it's never going to the router at all.

Anonymous

11:12

Because it's on the same network the switch knows what to do with it. But I am sure the guide I linked will explain all that :D

Anonymous

Technically it will be going to the router but it will still be only acting at L2.

watchme

Why do I need two Switches?

Anonymous

You don't "need" two switches.

Anonymous

But with two switches you can assign one switch one subnet, another switch another submet.

Anonymous

Then you will be doing more than jsut passing over different vlans on the same switch.

Anonymous

11:14

If the guide shows one switch just do one for now.

Anonymous

Two just adds a little bit more so you have to use repetition which is how you learn.

watchme

But it would also be possible to just use one switch to connect to one interface on the router where I create 2 subinterfaces right

Anonymous

Yeah one is fine also.

Anonymous

If you look at the very first picture on that link (firewall.cx/cisco-technical-knowledgebase/cisco-routers/…) that is essentially what you're configuring.

Anonymous

So you've got one switch, one router and two VLANs.

Anonymous

11:19

If you wanted to make it more complex you could add in another switch.

Anonymous

You don't "need" to configure more than one switch it just makes it that little bit more complex (Although it's not really THAT much more complex)

Anonymous

But if you follow that guide it walks you through the whole thing.

Anonymous

And, to answer your last part, you don't even need a sub interface here.

watchme

yeah thanks !

Anonymous

You just create a trunk to the router and two VLANs for network devices and that is it :D

watchme

11:25

But how then does the router distinguish between those subnets? There must be two interfaces as there are two subnets ....

I should probably read more about computer networks :D

Anonymous

What are you asking? I'm confused.

Anonymous

Your trunk passes the traffic to the router.

Anonymous

You're confused. An interface is PHYSICAL a VLAN is not.

Anonymous

In the first image on that link, VLAN1 is a "network" & VLAN2 is a "network"

Anonymous

So lets say that Ports 1 - 5 are VLAN1

Anonymous

11:31

And 6 - 10 are VLAN 2.

Anonymous

If I am on VLAN 1 with an IP of lets say 192.168.1.1

Anonymous

And I want to pass traffic to VLAN2.

Anonymous

And theres a device on 192.168.2.1 on VLAN2

Anonymous

To pass that traffic I will need to send my frames from the switch down the trunk to the router.

Anonymous

It will be the ROUTER that sends it back to VLAN2.

Anonymous

11:33

Not the switch because a switch is only L2 aware (mac address)

watchme

Yeah, but in order to route between two networks (or VLANs) two seperate (sub-)interfaces have to be created right? Otherwise the router wouldn't know to which network (VLAN) the traffic belongs to, or which VLAN tag has to be inserted....or am I mixing/confusing here something a bit ^^?

Anonymous

I think you need to do some reading on ARP, VLANs, frames, routers & switches :D

Anonymous

Obviously the traffic will still go back to the switch because the router cannot see those devices that much is true.

Anonymous

But the router will tell the switch where to send it.

Anonymous

Do some reading on ARP :D

Anonymous

11:36

That will help A LOT.

Anonymous

tummy.com/articles/networking-basics-how-arp-works

watchme

But when the router recieves a frame with a VLAN 10 tag (VLAN 10 = 192.168.1.0 /24), and the destination address is 192.168.2.100 (because VLAN 20 = 192.168.2.0/24), how does the router then know which VLAN-tag to insert?

It must be through subinterfaces right!?^^

Anonymous

learningnetwork.cisco.com/docs/DOC-23481

Anonymous

It will take me far too long to write out that whole blog post will explain EXACTLY how this works.

Anonymous

And yes it's very, very, very long but it's also PERFECTLY detailed.

Anonymous

11:43

I understand what you're saying :D

watchme

Ok, I will better read that, thanks ^^

Anonymous

It's just.

Anonymous

YOu need to read that :D

Anonymous

The short answer to your sub-if question is yes.

Anonymous

If you have multiple vlans.

Anonymous

11:44

Yes.

Anonymous

It's just me giving you that short answer doesn't help you if you don't read how it all works :D

Anders

This might be of interest over at the Workplace:

4

Q: Motivate coworkers to use strong passwords

I work for a expanding company and we are currently establishing a new IT-infrastructure and several company-policies (privacy/safety rules). One of my biggest concerns is the acceptance of password rules by several of my coworkers in environments where we can't enforce password-regexes and so on...

Anonymous

I will give that a read in a minute @Anders

Anonymous

Will it tell me how to convince my whole company to use secure passwords for customers networks?

Anonymous

Because, we don't.

Anders

11:49

@JoshuaJones I don't think there is anything, apart from maybe threat of violence, that will make everybody pick good passwords...

Anonymous

@Anders Haha. Even if a serious breach happened people would still use HarryPassword1994

Anders

Oh, that's a good one. I'll start using it for my gmail.

Anonymous

It actually angers me sometimes that we provide services to customers and security is always on the bottom of the pile. But when you're a 17-year-old, junior engineer nobody will listen to you >.<

Anonymous

And that is corporate life, unfortunately. Just like I tried to explain the "2FA" we use for certain customers is just 1FA done twice but apparently that doesn't matter because it's still an "extra layer" but when your pin is just 0000 it's like putting an extra bikelock on your bike without locking it.

Anonymous

The worst part is when people say "you take security too seriously" that really annoys me.

Anonymous

11:54

I often reply with - I won't be the serious one when someone logs into their core router with the password Cisco.

watchme

Or when your management VLAN is 1

... yeah I know my stuff...

:D

Anonymous

What makes it worse is we sell "security" solutions as a sort of side "business" to customers.

Anonymous

Imagine selling someone a security appliance then leaving the password as "Cisco" as type7 which can be reversed by Googling "type7 password reverser"

Anonymous

Very. Nice.

Anonymous

One day I am just going to login to all the devices and remove the password completely to prove a point...

Anonymous

11:59

@watchme I don't know if you saw my short answer on Sub-IFs but if you didn't - the short answer is yes.

watchme

@JoshuaJones ok yeah, thanks! :)

Anonymous

No problem.

Anonymous

Anyway, I am going to step out for some lunch.

watchme

Bye!

@Anders I think on of the best arguments to use it is that its more secure (yeah woho) and not that much of a burden as there are many convenient password managers. I think when people begin to use password managers, they will stick to using more secure passwords (as there is no work to remember them). There is no argument against it.

I may have to mention that I don't work in a company but am still a student... so I don't really know how much employees resist to use secure(r) passwords although there is a password manager.

Anonymous

12:54

Watchme I can safely say that I don't think most companies are using as secure password as you might think

M'vy

13:05

@JoshuaJones and get fired in the process

watchme

I have once watched a series where people working for the TV-company told people on the street that they have a machine which can proof if their e-mail password is secure. They just had to type in their email and the password of it.

Well... they did ^^

Anonymous

@M'vy Also true.

Anonymous

@M'vy On the flip side I think I might actually change all the passwords to be something a lot more secure.

Anonymous

@watchme Wow oh wow.

Anonymous

I don't know why that surprises me in all honesty, it's very believable. Especially in this day'n'age

Anonymous

13:17

People will almost believe anything you tell them with enough convincing, the key point here is the "machine" they provided as "evidence" this is possible. It's also a little bit psychological if you think about it because what they have done is provide you with a sense of "security" but it's a false one.

Anonymous

I imagine the brain here would think - "well they're telling me that this machine will tell me if its secure, so surely they will not be bad people and thus this is a real thing and not somebody doing something malicious"

M'vy

@JoshuaJones And probably still get fired for it :P

though you might get out of this one, maybe

Anonymous

It sounds stupid and I am no scientist but I would imagine that is what happens in the brain when someone promises security.

Anonymous

@M'vy Probably. I'm glad I am not in a position where if we have a breach I am the one at fault or under fire whatever you want to call it.

Anonymous

Because I am just a junior network engineer it's not my job to secure the company, at the same time we don't have ANYBODY to do it and as I am the only one who appears to be fascinated by the field I take it upon my back to try and warn them.

Anonymous

13:20

Those warnings only go so far, usually "so far" means everyone in the meeting hears them just nobody gives a fuck.

Anonymous

Must be "bigger fish to fry"

Anonymous

The problem I have is - I am deeply fascinated by security & pretty security conscious, paranoid, aware you name it; the issue with that is we don't have anybody else at my work who follows that same pattern. Nobody here is interested in security, nobody wants to be interested in it, nobody cares enough to be interested in it (I say that I cannot know for sure because there are a lot of people that work at my company but after being here 10 months it's the conclusion I draw)

Anonymous

What worries me about that is if nobody cares when is the line drawn? It may not be my remit but it's my responsibility to keep customers networks secure because that's what they pay us for. So it kinda' just makes me a little angry.

watchme

@JoshuaJones Well, when everybody in your company thinks that no hacker really cares about your company ("why should he"), there's no need to put in (a lot of) work to make everything as secure as possible.

And... well, many thought so. (In many (most!?) cases no "hacker" will ever do something, that's "the problem")

Anonymous

Yes. Honestly, if one of our customers calls up and asks about a security vulnerability whether it affects them, etc if I don't know anything about it I just go an read about it anyway and then drop them an email and determine if they're affected (usually no more than reading some config or looking at their version, simple things like that)

Anonymous

13:26

And that makes me feel a whole lot better than just leaving it.

Anonymous

I may be a network engineer but if I can help I tend to do so. To be honest; I've only got another 8 months on my contract and I don't think I will be renewing.

Anonymous

Security is very comparable to the boy who cried wolf, people will only listen until something happens because the idea that something could happen is not powerful nor believable enough.

watchme

its human joshua... its human. Just go to the CEO and tell him how he will be affected by an attack, than the idea that something could happen gets more powerful I can promis :P

Anonymous

I should change my name back to Josh on here on the basis I don't enjoy being called Joshua, lol.

Anonymous

I am not sure why I changed it to Joshua actually... :p

Anonymous

13:35

And yes I get your point :)

Anonymous

13:50

I need your folks opinions on a question I propose to put on here.

Anonymous

Do you think that a question on "Why its taking so long for us to move forward with a securer BGP" is a good fit?

Anonymous

The Q would discuss the problems with BPG.

Anonymous

BGP*

Anonymous

Possible solutions to these problems.

Anonymous

And finally it would whether there is anything specifically holding us back from implementing a securer BGP or whether there are any security concerns which such a thing.

watchme

14:02

Is it hard to implement BGP or is the ISP responsible for that?

Anonymous

Well BGP is just a routing protocol, it's not hard to do, no. The problem is the Internet runs on BGP. Yet, BGP is incredibly insecure by design - there is actually NO security in BGP at all other than an MD5 authentication token (Which you can use)

Anonymous

I'm not so worried about getting an answer on why BGP is insecure - I already know that answer to that, I already know it is and it's an indisputable fact. What I am interested is; is fully understanding why it's taking us so long to implement a more secure BGP - more to the point what is causing these issues.

Anonymous

And whether or not there is a security reason or context to the time it's taking to get movement on such a thing.

O'Niel

15:16

Question about email validation. Is there a context in which mails like name@domain are valid? instead of [email protected]? In a intranet environment for example?

With other words an email without a top-level domain like .org, .net. .com,...

just example@domain

Anonymous

Hmm. I am actually not sure. I don't think so...?

Tom K.

@O'Niel depends where you are trying to validate it ;)

Anonymous

It's certainly not something you can do in Outlook.

Tom K.

but it's a valid mail address if it is a local server iirc

Anonymous

Unless there is some config I don't know about.

Anonymous

15:23

At least I just tried to email myself from my corp account without .co.uk and it brought up the domain members box with "user not found" or whatever it says :p

Anonymous

Tom knows more than me about this as evident by me being clueless to the answer lol

Tom K.

@O'Niel icann.org/news/announcement-2013-08-30-en

Anonymous

Is it stupid to ask why you'd want such a thing?

Anonymous

I cannot think of any practical reasons as to why you'd need to use a dotless domain... :?

Tom K.

@JoshuaJones it's always good to know legit exceptions if you want to break systems :)

Anonymous

15:25

That is true, haha.

Anonymous

But in terms of business practicality.

Anonymous

I cannot see it being that useful?

Tom K.

that's probably why everyone discourages you to do it :P

Anonymous

I am still debating whether my question on BGP is worth posting...

Anonymous

I feel like it will just get closed as "primarily opinion based" even though the nature of the question is the question I am asking is not.

Tom K.

15:27

speaking of discouragement @JoshuaJones: you gotta be a bit nicer than this

Anonymous

Nicer?

Tom K.

yup

towards newer users

Anonymous

But what was unnice?

Tom K.

explain the rules to them, but don't shove them in their face :)

Anonymous

" how do I carry out X attack? Which is off-topic unless you provide methods you've tried/think might work and evidence to suggest you've done prior research, etc." does that not explain the rules?

Tom K.

15:28

maybe there are other standards for politeness in the UK, but I'd call that impolite "This is ultimately an incredibly poor question" :P

Anonymous

"provide methods you've tried/think might work and evidence to suggest you've done prior research, etc." specifically that line.

Tom K.

it's all good, you didn't commit a crime. it's just a hint

Anonymous

Hmm, perhaps the last part could've been removed, you're correct.

Anonymous

I don't think there are different standards here it's just me.

Anonymous

I struggle to see differences between being impolite and being polite

Tom K.

15:31

you'll learn ;)

Anonymous

Uhm.

Anonymous

Probably not...

Anonymous

It's quite hard to tell the difference when you have AS :p

Anonymous

Not that me typing the last part has anything to do with that other than the fact that I cannot distinguish when something is impolite. It's just I cannot really learn such a thing due to that.. Thank you for the tip though I will try :p

Tom K.

heh okay

Anonymous

15:37

Communication is a very weak point in my skillset.

Anonymous

But thank you regardless.

watchme

17:27

@JoshuaJones actually you were the first one who didn't get a bit "aggressiv"/annoyed after explaining something via chat to me. Most people think that I know that stuff due to my reputation, and get annoyed as if I wouldn't understand it on purpose, but it takes its time when you don't know much about a topic (I am not dumb, but no matter how good you are in technics, when something got explained to you in a confusing way, its sometimes hard to change the picture).

Anonymous

17:53

Haha. Well. Regardless I am not good at communicating I just can't help it, I try though

watchme

No problem :P
In which field are you an engineer? In my country the term engineer is used for pretty much every field in technics.

Cameron Verotti

18:14

Hello all!

watchme

19:54

@CameronVerotti helloo

Anonymous

20:16

@watchme "Self proclaimed youngest network engineer"

Anonymous

I am a network engineer.

Benoit Esnard

21:07

Does a company need to disclose every possible data breach it had in the latest 20 years, thanks to GDPR?

Transcript for