Hi All,
Can anyone explain Bartender integration to me.
We have a path set up, but I’m struggling with next step and its making no sense to me what so ever. I’m getting an error saying that i need a sub folder?
can anyone help a girl out
Hello @Min90,
Do you already have the KB articles for configuring Bartender for cloud?
That information should point you in the correct direction.
Can you provide a screen shot of your integration, and the error please.
2. Create a BarTender subfolder
As you cannot write directly to the root folder of the FTP account, you must create a subfolder using an FTP client program first.
For example, if the UNC Path (for use in the application) is \ausdtswebprd00\XXXXXX you create a subfolder named Bartender (or BT) and enter that path in the output location in report style \ausdtswebprd00\XXXXXX\Bartender
I have found this… I thought i had already created a sub folder
i don’t have an it background, so none of it makes any sense
So you are using KB0073241 ? to work through the process. It does note that FTP site shares have been replaced with Azure file shares since 2023.
You probably want to be following along with KB0132856
1 Like
You need to be using a ftp software like filezilla to create the subfolder on the ftp site itself…
But as I mentioned you probably should be using the Azure method.
At this point. I am going to have to say you need to reach out to your IT team to help or dare I say, Epicor Professional Services.
thank you for support, i have now emailed Epicor to see if i can get any further with them.
1 Like
I can second this advice. KB0132856 is the way for Bartender for cloud. Step one is to create a Epicare case requesting support create the Azure file share for you. Then they will provide a script for you to connect to it from on premises. etc etc
2 Likes
As I just ran into the issue, Azure shares aren’t a universal solution, because many ISPs (around half where I live) block port 445 throughout their network…
As they should.
Azure file shares can also use a REST endpoint and do transactions via REST.
specifically
1 Like
I don’t necessarily agree that port 445 should be blocked across a service provider’s network… SMB 3.0 tunnels through TLS and is secure and internet-ready… And the issue is not to access it from Epicor, it’s to access it from the server where BarTender is installed… I shouldn’t have to write a service to download files from the share through REST… At the very least, remapping to another port should be possible…
It is, but NTLM is not. Here are Microsoft’s recommendations for SMB and UNC hardening:
Protect SMB traffic from interception | Microsoft Learn
Which includes:
Restrict outbound SMB destinations
Block outbound SMB traffic to devices outside your network as a minimum. Blocking outbound SMB prevents data being sent to external endpoints. Malicious actors often try spoofing, tampering or phishing attacks that attempt to send users to malicious endpoints disguised as friendly links or shortcuts within emails or other files. To learn more about blocking outbound SMB access, read the Secure SMB Traffic in Windows Server article.
Sure, but… (not to beat this dead horse too much)
The ISP shouldn’t be the one blocking outbound SMB, it should be done by the customer endpoint’s firewall. Easy to make a firewall rule to only allow outbound connections to a single IP or domain…
1 Like
I agree completely. I think there’s one reason why they recommend it. Most people, especially SMBs, hospitals, and governments won’t set up the firewalll appropriately and we ended up with the WannaCry ransomware attack. I think Microsoft and Google see the future of SMB over QUIC, which requires certificates on both ends and avoids port 445 altogether.
Sorry for hitting the horse one more time.
Are you though?
Probably not…
2 Likes
The problem with horses like this is that when you stop beating on them and think they are truly dead, they somehow waft back up into the Ether(net) and continue haunting us forever onwards…
2 Likes