Same tbh, I've added a couple of super basic questions related to firewall log analysis which have become one of the strongest filters we've got during candidate interviews. It's beyond disappointing to see how many fail to answer with what should be common knowledge
Both of you have me curious. What's a simple networking question? Are we talking familiarity with the IETF RFCs and their data formats, some common program, or something else?
It can depend on the position honestly. For us one of the most basic ones we've had for a while now is asking the candidate to state how many hosts are in a /24 network. Another is identifying standard ports such as DNS, RDP, SSH, SMTP, that sort of thing which is very, very basic fundamental knowledge when it comes to networking, I've seen more candidates get these wrong or straight up not know them than there should be, some of whom claimed to have 3+ years experience as network engineers. Fuck even giving them an IPV4 address and asking them to state if it's private or public has tripped a couple up
Guess I'm a qualified network engineer now! I'll add that to my resume.
Trick question, you didn't say whether it was IPv4 or IPv6. (I suspect this would be a passing answer.)
Any real networking guy would know only IPv4 matters, and would've probably heard stories about IPv6 being broken for months before anyone even noticed.
Yeah it's very difficult to find people who genuinely know their shit and aren't too far up their own ass to admit when they lack the knowledge on something, Planting a few trick/out of scope questions does help to weed out that type but obviously some will unfortunately still get through the cracks. It's even better when that ego causes a major incident, I still await the day I can shove a fuckwit like that infront of a client and force them to get absolutely shit on, it really seems to be the only way absolute niggers like that will learn imo
The only one that would trip me, a network engineer, up, is knowing the RDP port off the top of my head. But my response to that would be "Somewhere in the single-digit thousands IIRC but if you're that much of a Windows shop and also want to open up that port maybe I should just leave."
Mine would be "I don't remember RDP from the top of my head but I can quickly check in /etc/services. You ARE a Linux shop right?"
error : MSB4803: The task "ResolveComReference" is not supported on the .NET Core version of MSBuild. Please use the .NET Framework version of MSBuild. See https://aka.ms/msbuild/MSB4803 for further details.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't IPv4 just starting to be phased out for IPv6, due to the character limit inherent in IPv4?
Not in the slightest.
....fucking wut? No. The sole reason for pushing IPv6 is address exhaustion... because some clowns decided that everybody and their toaster needed a world-routable address for no fucking reason whatsoever, and then decided to compound that error by giving huge swaths of addresses to corpos that just decided, yeah, we're going to hang on to those forever even though we're not using all of them. Rather than just solving the address exhaustion problem, though, IPv6 is riddled with additional AIDS and FAIL no one asked for. It's adoption has been stalled for some time by a number of trends I won't get into... but suffice it to say: Fuck IPv6, and we should solve the address exhaustion problem by literally disconnecting the turd world and corpos and reclaiming the addresses.
Glowies need to know how many toasts and when you eat for your psychological profile.
I think that's what he meant. I think he was referencing IPv4's 32bit address space, and just worded it strangely. IDK.
When I said character limit, I was referring to Address Exhaustion, please bear with me as all I know is very surface level shit.
Well, none of this retardation seems to extend to the license, which is just the normal MIT License from what I can gather. Someone should just make a fork.
https://github.com/Tyrrrz/DiscordChatExporter/issues/1019