Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 99 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    triaged  ·  2 comments  ·  Networking » VPN Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  2. 328 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    11 comments  ·  Networking » VPN Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  3. 37 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    started  ·  2 comments  ·  Networking » VPN Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  4. 204 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  5. 531 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    35 comments  ·  Storage » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    This is a phenomenal hole. Forcing storage containers for application logs to be publicly reachable from the internet is such a security page 1 fail that I can't even begin to comprehend it.

    How are we meant to design secure system if the architecture is working against you in such a fundamental way???

    At least MS should document any workarounds that exist, until they do the job properly..

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  6. 11 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Update Management » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  7. 125 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    29 comments  ·  Update Management » Scheduling  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    or if not explicit "patch tuesday" support, a patch on release day + N or weekend +N from the release day.

    We like to patch test and UAT on the day or so after release, then production a week or two later at the weekend. Impossible to achieve under the current mechanism

    This allows for any post-patch tuesday fixed to be picked up and attended to in a timely and safe (i.e. non production first) manner

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  8. 36 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  3 comments  ·  Azure Backup » SQL in IaaS VM  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Or alternatively, restore to SQL server on a VM that is in a different subscription. The use case here is validating our production system backup - we don't have any non-production SQL servers in the same location/subscription.

    We do have some in a different Dev/test subscription because of our Visual Studio/MSDN licencing - they're all on connected VNETs and the subscriptions are linked so all managed through the same portal login. I don't really want to spin up a new SQL server just for a test restore and not in my production subscription. Is there a way around this?

    Thanks

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  9. 128 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    unplanned  ·  15 comments  ·  Azure portal » Search + navigation  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  10. 85 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    25 comments  ·  Update Management » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  11. 112 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    21 comments  ·  Update Management » Scheduling  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  12. 630 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    36 comments  ·  Networking » Network Security Groups  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  13. 49 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Networking » Network Security Groups  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Same question - allowing ICMP echo is critical for us. If you have a complex NSG in place, not being able to permit echo is like troubleshooting with one hand behind your back

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  14. 306 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    17 comments  ·  Networking » VPN Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  15. 340 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    15 comments  ·  Networking » Network Security Groups  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  16. 658 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  17. 1,563 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    47 comments  ·  Web Apps  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    We really need this for basic security. My personal use case doesn't need a static external IP, but we use a SQL Azure database and not being able to limit the SQL Azure firewall to just our app service is a terrible limitation - instead we have to open SQL Azure to "All of azure". So a static external IP may be a solution to this, but any solution that allows me to put the Web App on a VNET for internal traffic would also work, Basic security..

  18. 398 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    18 comments  ·  Networking » Network Security Groups  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    An update would be much appreciated. Suffering with multiple identical source/destination networks in NSG rules that we would like to manage as a set. Current process is dangerously unwieldy

Feedback and Knowledge Base