NAC Log on Change – Aug 6

30 07 2014

This email from the TSC went out to all faculty and staff on 2014-07-28:

Dear Faculty and Staff:

When prompted to login to Cisco NAC beginning on Wednesday, August 6th your logon ID will no longer be your legacy user account (e.g., smithj2) but will instead be your Royal ID Number.  You simply enter your Royal ID Number (it is printed on your Royal Card) and your password (also your email password).

This conversion is part of Planning and Information Resources continuing efforts to improve services through standardization and to provide secure and reliable computing resources.

Questions and concerns about the Cisco NAC conversion to Royal ID Number should be directed to the Technology Support Center at x4357 or

P.S. Cisco NAC (aka CNAC) is that blue pop-up screen that you log in to in order to connect your desktop/laptop to the University network.

Royal Drive downtime on Friday!

9 06 2014

This notice from the Technology Support Center went out to all faculty and staff, but since it will have a major impact on most anyone who’s on campus working on Friday, I thought I’d repost:

Royal Drive (also known as Xythos) will be unavailable on Friday, June 13th, from 8 am until approximately 5 pm in order to upgrade and integrate it with Active Directory. We apologize for the inconvenience, however due to the necessity of the vendor, this must be scheduled during normal business hours. Please plan accordingly. If you have questions about this upgrade please contact the Technology Support Center at (570) 941-4357 or

New features will include:

  • Thumbnail view – shows a small image preview of the file
  • Quick view – launches a new screen with a larger view of the file and includes metadata
  • Mobile web view – allows you to manage, view, upload, share, and search documents within the Xythos repository
  • Bookmarks – moved to a link in the main menu; allows you to create a bookmark folder and add bookmarks to it
  • Folder tagging – now you can tag folders as well as files
  • Advanced upload for classified files – upload files and folders and have classification applied at the time of the upload
  • Workflow options – set automatic workflow tasks forwarding to other users while they are out-of-office
  • And more …..

The Technology Support Center
University of Scranton
(570) 941-4357

Summer network downtimes

2 06 2014

Just a heads-up for those who work on campus during the summer — there are some rolling Saturday morning network downtimes planned for university buildings (residential and administrative) over the next few weeks. All are Saturdays, 8am-12 noon and will affect wireless as well as wired phone and computer network connections.

See the calendar (PDF) for a full schedule, but here are a few of the planned downtimes for academic buildings:

  • O’Hara — June 7
  • McGurrin – June 14
  • Hyland — June 21
  • WML — June 28
  • CLP — July 5
  • STT — July 12 and July 19 (July 12 is STT-East, including Harper-McGinnis; July 19 is STT-West)
  • Long/Byron — July 19
  • Brennan — July 26
  • LSC — August 2 and August 9
  • IMBM — August 16
  • Loyola Hall — August 16

And here’s the announcement from the downtime-notices listserv:

Downtime Notices:
1) Purpose
Upgrade network-switch software
2) Systems Affected:
Wireless, IP-phones & computers connected in these buildings
3) Downtime Window:
Saturdays from 8AM to noon for administrative buildings or Monday-Thursday prior to 7AM for residence-halls per the attached building schedule
4) Point of Contact:
Steve Gilbody
Office:  941-6193, Cell: 335-3926

TAG Meeting Notes 2014-05-07

7 05 2014

TAG Meeting May 7, 2014 12:00pm-1:00pm

Jeremy Brees, Tim Cannon, Teresa Conte, Kim Daniloski, Dave Dzurec, Tara Fay, Jim Franceschelli, Eugeniu Grigorescu, Calvin Krzywiec (guest), Andrew LaZella, Kristen Yarmey

TAG thanks Library Dean Charles Kratz for sponsoring lunch for our meeting today.

1. BYOD Strategy Draft

Calvin Krzywiec joined us as a guest to present and discuss a draft version of IR’s strategy for accommodating the BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) trend. Cal is Assistant Director of Network Security & Engineering and served as chair for the IR Strategy Group tasked with studying BYOD. The group is currently seeking feedback from campus stakeholders to incorporate into a final strategy.

Cal explained that the group’s objectives were driven by increasing demand among students and faculty for access to institutional services from personal mobile devices. The group’s top priority is supporting BYOD for teaching and learning, while a secondary priority is protecting the security of institutional data.

For teaching and learning (see p. 2-4 in the draft), IR’s BYOD objectives include:

  • Investigate and implement untethered teaching/learning solutions
  • Focus classroom upgrades on providing collaborative, flexible workspaces
  • Leverage virtual desktop/application technologies and client devices to reduce reliance on physical lab infrastructure
  • Leverage virtual desktop/application technologies to provide ubiquitous access to lab software resources
  • Investigate and implement secure electronic assessment solutions
  • Expand lecture capture to additional locations

The draft identifies several barriers to BYOD implementation that were also raised by faculty members in TAG’s informal survey on specialized software and computer labs.  These include:

  • Expensive licensing fees for specialized software
  • Potential disparities in student computer ownership
  • Inaccessible and/or limited power sources
  • Security for electronic assessment/computerized testing
  • High demand on wireless network

The draft strategy recommends partnership with CTLE to support faculty needs as well as engagement with faculty during the implementation of BYOD-related strategies. Jim said that IR will work with TAG to recruit faculty volunteers to test out tools and services. While the precise timeline for rolling out these changes isn’t yet determined, there are some pilot projects already in motion. Faculty members in KSOM are piloting software for securing a browser (for computerized testing) using lab computers running thin clients. Teresa noted that the Nursing department would be very interested in piloting computerized testing tools in McGurrin. IR also plans to pilot test untethered teaching/learning options in the fall – TAG will get more information on this in the summer. Tim volunteered to participate in this pilot. IR has already been piloting Panopto lecture capture and will be looking to add this capability to additional classrooms for Fall 2014. Mobile printing is also in process.

Regarding network and authentication issues: Cal said that IR will be replacing the Cisco NAC client with encrypted SSID authentication, so that users will be able to log in to the University network from their device without downloading and installing CNAC. Once a device has been logged in,  it will stay logged in – users won’t have to reauthenticate multiple times during the day to stay on the network.

The second half of the draft (p. 4-9) addresses faculty and staff devices. One issue addressed is primary computing devices (for most faculty, our desktop computer). While currently primary devices are purchased and provided by the University, alternative models such as reimbursement or stipends for equipment and software purchases could be discussed.

Secondly, in order to protect institutional data, the draft proposes a three-tiered mobile device management (MDM) system:

  • Mandatory: This tier applies to all University issued devices and requires an enrollment in a MDM system that enforces the implementation of technical controls on the device, such as lock code, lock when idle, remote wipe capabilities, device encryption, and potentially even location tracking for locating a lost device.
  • Optional: This tier applies to all non-­‐corporate owned staff, faculty, and affiliate devices connecting to University systems, including email. Enrollment in the MDM solution is optional but the expectations of minimal technical controls and the requirement to notify PIR of a lost/stolen device are defined in institutional policy. Employees must agree to allow the University to wipe the device when it is lost/stolen or the employee separates from the institution.
  • Exempt: This tier applies to student devices. This tier has no requirements but offers guidance to students on how to secure their devices.

The draft proposes that a remote wipe could be partial rather than complete, “removing only corporate data.”

Kristen raised concerns about the Optional tier, which would apply to many faculty-owned mobile devices. Firstly, the exact definition of “corporate data” may need to be clarified. According to Appendix VIII (“Copyright”) of the Faculty Handbook, in most (but not all) circumstances, faculty retain copyright over works created as part of their normal teaching, research, and service duties – including research data, lecture notes, videos of lectures, syllabi, etc.  Kristen will look into existing University policies and documents to better understand what types of records (email?) would fall under this policy. Kristen also raised concerns about references to wiping data (including email) upon “employee separation,” which for faculty may take different forms (emeritus, phased retirement, terminal sabbatical, etc).

The BYOD Strategy Group will be compiling feedback into the next draft of the report. Kristen will write up summarized feedback from TAG’s discussion as a formal response to the draft document.

2. Brief Updates 

(The BYOD discussion took up most of the meeting, so updates were rushed.)

Identity Finder automated scans (Kristen)

Kristen has been working with Adam Edwards and Scott Finlon in Information Security to answer faculty questions about Identity Finder automated scans. Kristen has updated the Identity Finder FAQ with clarifications from Information Security.  There are still some faculty concerns about the scanning and reporting process (which was approved by the President’s cabinet back in June 2013); however, we have addressed as many as possible.

Information Security would like to begin the automated scans. TAG members present at the meeting felt ready to move forward with scanning faculty machines. Dave will report at this Friday’s Senate meetings that scans will begin. Kristen will work with Adam to coordinate a schedule and an all-faculty email notification.

Test Scanning Services (Jim)

Jim reported that IR will be changing the hours of Test Scanning Services effective Monday, May 12, 2014.  The service will continue to be provided from Alumni Memorial Hall, Room 001. Tests may be dropped off and results picked up Monday through Friday, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.  Based upon demand and operational requirements, immediate service while you wait may not be available.  IR will continue to strive to meet the needs of our customers and will provide a 24 hour turnaround of test scanning results.  Jim asked that faculty please plan accordingly as we approach the end of the Spring term.  Jim will contact regular users of the test scanning service with more details.

Desire2Learn (Eugeniu)

Additional Desire2Learn workshops are being planned for the summer – see CTLE’s workshop calendar for the updated schedule. Eugeniu also reminded TAG members that faculty should back up any student data (including grades, discussion forms, and dropbox submissions) in Angel that they wish to keep. Step by step instructions have been emailed out, but CTLE staff will also hold workshops on this during Senior Week for anyone who needs assistance (see ). Student access to Angel will be turned off as of May 30, but faculty will have access until July 31. After that, data stored in Angel will no longer be available.

PR Department/Program Website Initiative (Dave/Teresa)

We ran out of time for in-person updates on this project. Lori had sent Kristen updates via email. Kristen will post these notes to the TAG site in a separate update.

4. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:05pm. TAG will not meet again as a full group until Fall 2014, but projects and communication (via email) will continue during the summer.

[Updated immediately after posting with correction to Cal’s title]

Royal Drive – Off Campus Access

31 07 2013

Update as of August 16th: Fixed!



Notification from the TSC, sent out via email yesterday at 4:20pm:

Access to RoyalDrive from off-campus, via both the portal and the Xythos client, has been disabled as of 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 due to a vulnerability.  Alternative methods for off-campus access are being developed and tested and will be made available as soon as possible.  If you are currently working off campus and need access to files on RoyalDrive, the server, via both the portal and the Xythos client will be made available to you from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 31, 2013.

More information will be provided via my.scranton portal announcements.   If you have further questions, you may contact the Technology Support Center at 570.941.4357 or

[Update as of August 1: ]

Off-campus access to Royal Drive will continue to be restricted until the vendor releases a patch for the vulnerability. Employees having a critical business need to access Royal Drive from off-campus through the end of next week may request alternative access by submitting an email message to with a valid business justification. If you have questions, please contact the Technology Support Center at (570) 941-4357.

Identity Finder and confidential data

14 04 2013

At our last TAG meeting, IT Services Director Jim Franceschelli and Information Security Director Adam Edwards invited faculty feedback on their Identity Finder Proposal on Automated Scans. For those just joining us, Identity Finder software scans your (Windows) computer for sensitive, unsecured Personally Identifiable Information (PII). The Information Security Office and IT Client Services are jointly proposing implementation of weekly, automated, required Identity Finder scans (see the proposal for details). During the meeting, TAG members shared some concerns about scheduling and performance effects. After the meeting, we received additional concerns from Bryan Burnham (Psychology), a member of the Institutional Review Board, that Identity Finder scans of machines storing human research subject data or client files (from a counseling practice, for example) would breach subject confidentiality. Concerns are paraphrased here:

There are privacy issues related to data collected on human research subjects that must be considered before automated Identity Finder scans of machines can occur. Specifically, we (IRBs, DRBs, PIs – primary investigators) ensure complete and total privacy of our human research subjects’ data, especially sensitive information (names, emails, Royal IDs, social security numbers), some of which is undoubtedly stored on computer hard drives. [The same is true for client files maintained by counselors or clinicians.]

“Subject confidentiality” means that knowledge of a person’s participation in a research study is between the human subject and only the PI. That is, a subject is guaranteed by the PI that knowledge of their participation as well as their personal and sensitive data will not be open or available to any third party – meaning anyone not associated with the research project. The automated Identity Finder scans would, in effect, view confidential human research subject data and client information that, by definition, cannot be viewed by others.

It should be noted that the Identity Finder reports that the Information Security office receives are redacted, showing a masked version of a potentially problematic file and the location where it was found, and are only accessible to the Information Security Director (Adam) and the Information Security Engineer (Scott Finlon). However, Bryan noted that the scan itself is the issue: third parties (including other University divisions/employees and University-owned software) are not allowed to access or see confidential subject information.

Bryan, Jeremy, Kristen, Adam, and Scott got together on Friday to get a better understanding of this issue and what options there might be for general campus implementation of automated Identity Finder scans without violating subject confidentiality.

We discussed a few options that IR and TAG  could consider for Identity Finder, each with varying advantages/disadvantages. A significant complication, however, is that at this point we don’t know how many researchers on campus have this kind of data, where it’s stored (faculty, staff, student, and/or lab machines? cloud storage?), and whether it’s encrypted or otherwise protected against security breaches (malicious or inadvertent). Bryan stressed that researchers are responsible for their own data and for ensuring subject confidentiality, and neither the IRB nor the University can impose or require specific data management practices, at least under current IRB policies.

Scott noted that the Identity Finder question is only the top layer of broader issues of privacy, security, and digital records management on campus, and that research data stored on a researcher’s hard drive or in cloud storage could be vulnerable to external attack. Both Adam and Scott mentioned that Identity Finder, used appropriately, could help researchers protect subject confidentiality by locating vulnerable information and prompting the researcher to take further steps towards securing it. We agreed, though, that educating researchers about data security and encouraging more secure data management practices (encryption, password protection, etc) will be a longer, more involved, and more inclusive conversation – but a conversation that needs to happen nonetheless.

Next steps: Bryan will bring this discussion to the IRB at their April 16th meeting for additional input and will share any relevant guidelines from grant agencies (e.g., Department of Health & Human Services), and his and others’ own digital data management practices. Adam and Scott will reach out to Identity Finder and other university security offices re: how others have handled this issue. They are willing to continue discussing accommodations for researchers storing sensitive data, if we can find all of them or somehow get them to self-identify. TAG might be able to help survey the faculty on this question (yes/no/unsure) – multiple outlets should be used to try to catch everyone’s attention. The IRB, ORSP, and TAG may want to coordinate a faculty forum on this topic.

We’re still early on in this discussion, so please contact TAG if you have any insight, concerns, or questions that we might not have considered yet.


TAG Meeting 2013-04-03

3 04 2013

TAG met for our third and final Spring 2013 meeting this morning, and it was a meaty one. Here’s what’s going on:

1. TAG Leadership for 2013-2014

Continuing the discussion from our March meeting, we’ve officially agreed to move to a rotating, 2-year-term, 2-co-chair leadership model for 2013-2014. Jeremy and Kristen nominated Dave (currently a Faculty Senator) to take over for Jeremy as co-chair in 2013-2014 and serve as TAG’s liaison to the Faculty Senate. We held a not-quite-strictly-parliamentarian vote among the faculty TAG members present, which passed with no audible or visible dissent, so Dave will start his 2-year term in Fall 2013… or more likely Summer 2013. Kristen will stay on for 2013-2014 and then rotate off, to be replaced by a new co-chair in 2014-2015.

2. Identity Finder Automated Scans

Jim brought Adam Edwards, our new Information Security Officer, with him to the meeting to talk about an Information Security Office/IT Client Services Identity Finder Proposal on Automating Scans. For those just joining us, Identity Finder software scans your computer for sensitive, unsecured Personally Identifiable Information (PII). It’s been installed on faculty computers since 2011 (Windows only – Mac and Linux users can skip this part). To date, the scans have been encouraged but entirely voluntary and entirely user-initiated.

The Information Security Office and IT Client Services are jointly proposing implementation of weekly, automated, required Identity Finder scans (see the proposal for details). Adam explained the rationale — if IR knows where sensitive data is stored on campus, it’s easier to protect that vulnerable data and avoid embarrassing FERPA violations. It’s also easier and faster to fix and return malware-infected machines if IR knows whether or not the machine had any sensitive data on it. Here’s how the proposed scans would work:

  • Every Friday at 12:30pm (or the next time your work machine was turned on), Identity Finder would automatically begin a scan.
  • Scans would be limited to only certain types of sensitive data – e.g., Social Security numbers, drivers’ license numbers, credit card numbers, and birth dates.
  • The Information Security Office would receive reports on the scan results. Adam would see the number of hits, and a masked view of the PII found, but he would NOT be able to see the file or the full PII picked up in the scan.
  • If a computer frequently had many hits identified, Adam would reach out to that user to help them better manage their sensitive data (so that the Information Security Office’s efforts would be focused on the largest sets of the most vulnerable data).

Adam has been testing with a small group. This Friday he’ll be rolling out the automated scans to all PIR staff members for another 2-3 weeks of testing. Adam noted that they are working on finding the most effective and efficient ways to scope the scans to minimize scan time.

TAG members mentioned a few concerns:

  • Scan length and performance effects — Kristen and Kim had run test scans on their machines that took much longer than expected (Kristen’s was 7 hours and 45 minutes, with a noticeable impact on performance).  Jim said that the subsequent scans are much faster, since you can set Identity Finder to ignore locations with many false positives – his scan takes about 3 hours. With respect to performance, Identity Finder does have a throttling capacity, such that it is not supposed to impact other applications. Adam explained that continued testing with PIR will help him make the scans faster and less noticeable.
  • Scheduling — Kevin and Katie noted that many faculty members (and their computers) are not on campus on Friday afternoons, especially if a scan needed multiple hours. We discussed a few options – for example, scheduling for Tuesday or Thursdays during the 11:30-1pm time slot, having an option to skip a scan if your machine had already been scanned within the past week, being able to pause a scan, doing monthly instead of weekly scans, pinging computers to automatically turn on and scan in the middle of the night, warning everyone to run their first scan overnight, etc.

To help resolve some of these issues and identify other areas of concern for faculty, TAG members volunteered to serve as test subjects for automated scans. Adam said that he’d like to work through the PIR staff first but will then reach out to TAG members for additional testing and scoping.

We invite our fellow faculty to contact us with other concerns or questions.  If you’d like to try Identity Finder, it should already be installed on your (Windows) machine, and you can find a Quick Guide for getting started at

3. Academic Server Decommissioning

An official memo from IR will be coming out in the next few days announcing a timeline for the decommissioning of the academic server (, which has been in the works since mid-2011.  The server has been heavily targeted by attacks, so due to security concerns, will no longer be *public-facing* beginning June 15. Internal access (via a campus IP address) will still be available until August 31 in case users need more time to move content. Adam explained that a firm deadline was needed in order to mitigate the major risk of a supposedly retired server still being public-facing.

Adam would like to work with people who still have public content on the server to migrate to either the CMS or another campus server.  (Content was supposed to have been migrated to the Content Management System (CMS), but there is still some active content there that was not migrated for one reason or another – some of it could not be accommodated within the CMS’s available functionality.) He has already met with the CTLE and the Library about moving the development pages for the Academic Integrity Tutorial. TAG will help reach out to faculty members who still have either individual content or organizational content on academic to determine what needs to be migrated where, and what level of support, assistance, or training is required. Adam will send Kristen information about the remaining directories and a list of faculty usernames connected to content on academic. After the official IR memo comes out, TAG will follow up that communication with those faculty members. (Faculty members who had individual pages on academic were contacted back in 2011 about moving their content, so hopefully most of this migration work is already completed.)

This discussion brought up some broader concerns about web development resources on campus. Tim described some of the difficulties he had finding a home for the Sheep Brain Dissection Guide. Eugeniu mentioned that some faculty members who had migrated their content from academic to the CMS reported that the Google ranking of their page had gone down in search results. The local WordPress server ( might be a new option for student and faculty web development, but the extent of this service is still being discussed. We didn’t come up with any answers on this, but as always faculty members may contact TAG with other concerns, questions, or suggestions regarding web development on campus.

Revision of The University of Scranton Acceptable Use Policy

4 03 2013

As we continue the revisions to the University’s acceptable use policy (formerly the code of responsible computing) we welcome feedback from members of the University community.  Please contact Dave Dzurec ( with any comments or questions.

University of Scranton Acceptable Use Policy DRAFT 02-21-2013

My.Scranton Update – New Faculty Tab Design

13 11 2012

The major update to the my.scranton portal (run on Luminis software) that we’ve been talking about for a while is now scheduled for next spring break (March/April 2013). Joe Casabona in IR has been convening a group of faculty, staff, and students to discuss how we can make the new design as efficient and useful as possible. The new version of Luminis is much more flexible and has a lot of new features, so we’ll be able to make pages that are dynamic and functional instead of just lists of links. We discussed the possibility of an app-style model, with modules or apps based on functions or tasks (e.g., parking, event planning, travel…), so that each user could add or prioritize the modules they use most.

I’m providing early input on a new faculty tab (which will become a “community”), and I’d like to get some feedback from a few faculty members so that I can draft up a demo version with Joe to share more broadly.  If you have time over Thanksgiving break, please do me a favor and answer a few questions for me:

  1. What tasks do you need to do on an everyday basis?
  2. On the current my.scranton page, what links/items do you use most?
  3. On the current my.scranton page, what links/items do you rarely or never use?
  4. What do you wish were on the current my.scranton page?

If you’d like, you can answer 2, 3, and 4 by writing on or annotating these screenshots (PDF) – circle the links you use most, strike out the items you never use, and write in the items you wish were there.

Send your feedback to me directly by interoffice mail or at, and let me know if you’d like to be involved in designing a demo version. Thanks!

TAG Meeting 2012-11-07

8 11 2012

On November 7, TAG held its third and final Fall 2012 meeting.

1. Code of Responsible Computing Committee update

Dave Dzurec (History) and Jim Franceschelli (IT Services) are co-chairing a committee charged with drafting an update to the Code of Responsible Computing. The goal of the committee is to create a single policy for faculty, staff, and students that will define responsible use of information technology at the University.

Dave and Jim have been reviewing acceptable use policies from other universities  and have almost finished a draft for the rest of the committee to review.  After review by the committee, the policy will go to VP/CIO Jerry DeSanto, and then it will enter the University governance system for full approval (probably in 2013-2014).

Faculty representatives on the committee (as appointed by the Faculty Senate) are Dave, Wesley Wang (Economics/Finance), and Bob Spinelli (Health Administration and Human Resources). The Staff and Student Senates also have two representatives each.

We discussed briefly how the new policy should be disseminated and shared with students and faculty after it is approved. Sandy asked whether new students/faculty/staff will need to sign off on the policy when they begin using University services to make sure they are aware of it. Kristen suggested incorporating a mention of the policy into the New Faculty Orientation. She will also suggest to the Associate Dean of the Library, Bonnie Strohl, that public patrons using Library computers would be informed of the policy in some way.

2. CTLE Technology Liaison

The Center for Teaching and Learning has two faculty liaisons (currently Anthony Ferzola and Marian Farrell) who provide an interface between faculty teaching and the CTLE’s resources. Faculty can reach out to the liaisons for support (e.g., teaching observations), and the CTLE can reach out to the liaisons for input on needed resources. The liaisons also run the faculty mentor/mentee program.

The CTLE wants to establish a similar faculty liaison who would specifically address academic technology questions and needs. They did a pilot project last year, with Sandy Pesavento (Education) serving as the faculty technology liaison, to see what role(s) a liaison should fill. Eugeniu asked TAG (including Sandy) for feedback on what a technology liaison’s “job description” should look like.

During the pilot year, Sandy did some technology trainings (higher order thinking, student response systems, smartboards, etc) and teaching observations (e.g., coming to a class to suggest technology tools that might be helpful to the instructor). One of the difficulties during the pilot year was that few faculty members outside of PCPS were aware that Sandy was available for consultation on technology issues, though, so a challenge for the future will be finding ways to promote the services the liaison provides.

We discussed other needs that a liaison could address. Several TAG members suggested a repository or database of some kind that would identify 1) educationally relevant technologies and 2) if/how faculty at Scranton and other universities have implemented them.  Katie noted that sometimes faculty don’t necessarily know what tools are available to them. Jeremy and Dave expressed interest in hearing from faculty members who have been doing pedagogical research with technology in the classroom – e.g., via Friday presentations like the Office of Research Services seminar series.

We also discussed the difficulty of knowing who to call for help – that is, CTLE supports faculty use of technology for pedagogy, but IT Services supports the actual hardware and software that faculty use in the classroom. Teresa suggested a flow chart to indicate who to call and when.

3. Windows 7 and Viewfinity

As Windows 7 is rolled out with new University computers, your account on your desktop/laptop will change from being an administrator account to a standard user account. This is a security measure to try to prevent users from downloading and installing malicious software. By default, standard users can’t install or delete applications, as administrators can.

We were concerned about this limitation when TAG first learned about it, but IT Services has put in a lot of work to figure out a good solution for faculty members so that this change doesn’t affect our work. Using Viewfinity privilege management software, faculty users can be automatically and temporarily elevated to administrators so we can install whatever software we need when we need it.

Kristen has been piloting Viewfinity as a faculty user since the middle of the summer, with excellent results.  There’s a small popup window that comes up each time you begin to install a program that asks for a “business justification,” but you can simply say you are using the program for teaching, research, etc – no lengthy explanation required. When you click OK, you are automatically bumped up to administrator while the program installs, and you are automatically bumped back down to standard user once the installation is complete. Commonly used software (Skype, iTunes, etc) is whitelisted to speed things up. Overall, the process is smooth and seamless — many thanks to Jim and the IT Services staff for finding a way to accommodate faculty needs.

Viewfinity has another big feature – Remote Desktop assistance! When you call the Technology Support Center, you’ll be able to share your desktop with the support staff so that they can help you easily from a distance. This service is in development and will be available soon. It will always have a prompt – your desktop won’t be shared without your approval.

Faculty members with XP machines will get Viewfinity via KBOX, so you’ll have Remote Desktop capability, but you will still maintain an administrator account (and XP) until you get a new computer.  Faculty members receiving new machines will have Windows 7 and a standard user account, with Viewfinity.

Viewfinity is not supported on Mac or Linux, so faculty using Mac or Linux machines are not affected by any of these changes.

Classroom and lab computers are all Windows 7 now, but they do *not* run Viewfinity — they have Deep Freeze instead. So you can install programs on classroom and lab computers, but those installations will disappear each time the machine shuts down. If you need to install software in a classroom or lab that you need to use frequently, submit a request to the TSC via Footprints.

4. Infrastructure for Computerized Testing

We were running out of time, so we didn’t get to discuss this agenda item. Jim suggested that a work group form to work on some possible solutions, since we haven’t made much progress on this issue. Jim, Teresa, Sandy, and Eugeniu will start to work on this.

5. & 6. WordPress Site Organization & Luminis Tab

No time for these agenda items either – Kristen will be in touch with TAG members via email.

TAG will not be meeting in December, so our next formal meeting will be in Spring 2013. TAG members will still be communicating and working throughout December and January, though, so as always please feel free to contact us with questions, concerns, or suggestions.