Slashdot Log In
Has Corporate Info Security Gotten Out of Hand?
Posted by
Cliff
on Wed Jan 18, 2006 08:52 PM
from the proper-security-is-like-walking-on-monowire dept.
from the proper-security-is-like-walking-on-monowire dept.
KoshClassic asks: "What is the right balance between security and productivity, in the corporate IT environment? Looking back at my company, 10 years ago, our machines were connected directly to the Internet, no proxy, no firewall, no antivirus software. Today, my company's proxy server blocks access to: 'bad' web sites (such as Google Groups; our 'antivirus' software prevents our machines (even machines that host production applications) from carrying out legitimate functions, such as the sending of email via SMTP; and individual employees are forced to apply security patches with little or no notice, under threat of their machines loosing network access, if they do not comply by the deadline. On one hand, you can never be too secure, however on the other hand, have we become so secure that we're stifling our own ability to get things done? What is the situation like at other companies?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Management? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of that was assuming you are running a Windows-based network. I am not as familiar with Linux software, but I know that similar services are available for Linux as well. In my experience managing network environments, most of this has never been a major problem. It seems to me that the network environment doesn't suffer from too much security, but that the existing security needs to be better managed so that it doesn't prove detrimental to the productivity of the employees.
Re:Management? (Score:5, Informative)
The only real problem is overzealous proxy servers, ...
Not really, often it best to deny, evaluate and permit with business cause. Provided the response is usually positive where the business need is legitimate then their is not an issue. Any security system will need to be tuned to work correctly. And often users fall into the trap of buying products that abuse protocols to circumvent security without regard to company policy.
The enemy within is in my experience a 50/50 split with the enemy outside. These tools are needed to prosecute criminal and negligent employee behaviors. Some examples I have freequently seen:
So remember this when you bitch about security. The behavior above was detected by security tools. And this type of behavior in corporate America costs companies lots and reduces the security of your job. Security is to enable you to do your job AND is there to prevent the 1/100 bad asses from getting inside to do your company harm. And the opposite is true, to prevent the 1/100 bad asses you have hired from compromising your company.
And if you don't think your threat exists from the inside, your either a very small trustworthy group or your just not looking.
Parent
Re:Management? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) A bug in one of our products affects an important customer. Engineering works feverishly to release updated firmware to fix the problem. As soon as the fix is validated, we e-mail it to the customer, but they never get the attachment. Why? IT decided to block attachments for unknown file types. The director of my division calls IT and compains. The response: "Sorry, that's our new policy." Our solution: I fly to Germany to hand deliver the updated firmware on a CD. Cost to the company: about $4000 in travel, 2 days of my time, and a customer who thinks we're crazy.
2) We are completing the timing analysis for a new ASIC. The simulations take about a week to complete, and if they are interrupted we have to start over. The only problem is that every time we start the tests, IT deploys a new security patch and forces a reboot of the PC before the testing can complete. This happens repeatedly and results in a 2 month delay in getting the chips made. We make up some of that lost time, but the project still slips by more than a month. As a result, we were contractually obligated to refund $200,000 of the NRE we got for doing the work since we missed our dates.
3) We use ClearCase for source code control. Everyone in the company with a unix account had access to the source code and could check in and check out files. Our IT department decided this was a security risk -- reasonable, I suppose. To correct the problem, without notice they disabled access for everyone. They then sent out an email saying that anyone who needed access had to fill out a form, get it signed by a manager, and fax it to their department. They were so bombarded with these requests that it took about 3 weeks to process them all and get everyone's access restored. It took them about 2 weeks to get to mine. During that time, my company paid me a fat salary to sit at my desk and learn how to work a rubik's cube. I can now work a rubik's cube in about 90 seconds, but this is of questionable value to my company.
4) To increase password security, our IT department implemented a new password policy. All passwords must be at least 8 characters long, contain at least one uppercase character, one lowercase character, and one number or symbol. All passwords must be changed every 30 days. When changing your password, you can't use any of the last 10 passwords you have used. Every system that requires a login must use a different password (I have a windows login, a unix login, a SAP login, and a login for an internal bug tracking tool). Ironically, all of these systems use LDAP authentication which was implemented about 2 years ago so that we could use the SAME password for all our accounts. If you enter the wrong password 5 times, your account gets locked out and you have to issue a ticket to the help desk to get your account restored. This usually takes about a day. The result of
Parent
Re:Management? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Management? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Management? (Score:5, Insightful)
The password thing sounds bad. 8 characters is ok (though not really mush more secure these days), no repeating of old passwords is ok (again not great), but 30 days is very bad. 30 days to lead to two problems. 1) People write it down on sticky notes; B) People make easy to remember "MyFebPwd1" "MyMarchPwd1" etc.
It sounds like the person who made your password policy could do with a dose of accurate information about the usability of passwords. However, the other stuff seems reasonable to me.
Parent
It's all possible... (Score:5, Informative)
Ideally security will allow everything that's vital while not stepping on any services that are required. With most companies, what is 'required' ends up being pared down as the security net gets closed down tighter.
Nostalgia is one thing -- how many of us worked on systems that had telnet / ftp open to the outside without a firewall? I know I did back in the day. When management is behind security initiatives, being able to work on the business isses ("No, we CAN'T disable FTP!") becomes less of a problem.
Regarding individual workstations -- putting the burden on end-users doesn't seem to be a common (thankfully) configuration in the companies I've seen. Most larger places are doing automated patch management and deployment now. I know quite a few places where every single system (desktop and production) is patched within a 15 day window. While it's not bleeding edge, this relatively fast schedule combined with the concept of 'defense in depth' goes a long way to preventing issues. I know places that haven't lost a machine to a virus in YEARS.
Security that's preventing legitimate work from being done needs to be adjusted. All of the problems you've mentioned are fixable.
Security is Good on Paper (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with most of what you've said, but there are two major problems:
The first is with the "appearance of security." Oftentimes management will hand down edicts based on something they've heard or read or even something a customer (when doing business with other businesses) has demanded. They may not understand why or how the security measure is preventing legitimate work from getting done. All they care about is that they can say "we have security measure X in place." In some cases they do understand that the problem hurts legitimate work, but believe for whatever reason that employees can/should adjust accordingly.
Second, security is often used as an excuse for "enabling workers through managed limitation of potential distractions." Increasingly, employers are concerned that one of their employees might not be thinking about work every second of every day. This stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the bounties technology has brought us. Instead of thinking (as they should) "I pay Joe to accomplish X task," they think, "I have purchased Joe for X hours." Hours are good, they think, because hours are quantifiable, but it makes more sense (especially in the tech industry) to tell people: this is your task. I don't care what you do between now and next month, so long as your task gets accomplished.
Maybe that's too utopian of me? I guess I just have a problem with a society that is increasingly able to accomplish great things in short periods of time insisting that the extra time must be filled only with more drudgery.
Parent
Re:Security is Good on Paper (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
one time, for security's sake (Score:5, Interesting)
One time for security's sake my office ethernet port was turned off by IT. Figuring it to be some outage I called support (hah!), and they looked up my IP address and said yes the port had been turned off because my machine had refused to accept recent XP updates.
Hmmm, but my machine is a linux machine! We're sorry, but until you're machine accepts the updates we can't re-enable the port. I asked why I hadn't been notified -- they said ALL XP login scripts had been posting the notice for over a week, I had been given "plenty" of warning!
Hmmmm, but my machine is a linux machine! We're sorry, but until you're machine accepts the updates we can't re-enable the port.
Fortunately I had a dual-boot, so I was able to comply.
But, ironic that one of their (in my opinion) least vulnerable machines on the network was mine.
(And, for the record, my assigned work had no specific XP requirement, and my responsibilities were heavily around Unix... so I wasn't in violation of any policy (such as they existed).)
Re:one time, for security's sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:one time, for security's sake (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing the problem is one of compartmentalization. The IT department doesn't talk to the production department, and so doesn't know there's some people that are running linux and not XP. The standard drone-like response of "We're sorry, but until you're machine accepts the updates we can't re-enable the port." really sounds to me like extreme compartmentalization.
Parent
Re:one time, for security's sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, weird that they might want a machine running Windows XP to be updated. You might have Linux on the machine, but you also had Windows XP, and it sounds like it was missing security patches.
And, for the record, my assigned work had no specific XP requirement, and my responsibilities were heavily around Unix.
And you apparently had a machine with Windows XP missing some (possibly significant) security patches sitting on their network.
I fail to see how this was stupid of the network admins. Draconian maybe, but it got you to apply the security patches.
Parent
Why it's stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are people who don't comprehend - or can't communicate - this employed in an IT organization??
Had they just explained things the way you explain them in your post, there would be no problem.
Parent
They were right. (Score:5, Insightful)
You should have simply rebooted to the XP side and run the updates. If you want the luxury of a dual-boot system, you should be willing to maintain both halves.
My policy for dual-boot machines is this: No. You can have two machines. I'll get you two monitors you can use dual-head on each machine, a KVM, your own switch, and I'll even clean the goo off your keyboard. But I won't manage a dual boot machine, and I don't want them on my network.
Why?
Parent
Seems pretty reasonable to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think this is unreasonable at all. What's the downside of enforcing a little rigor in your employees, when the alternative is having your entire corporate network become a zombie farm overnight controlled by a mob boss in Russia named Vladamir?
Speak for yourself... (Score:5, Interesting)
But also realize how much the worms of 2003 and 2004 cost corporations. I saw it first hand when working in a plant, and it was seriously disastrous. I can understand why they don't want that to happen again.
If surfing "bad" sites is THAT important to you, perhaps its time to get your resume out to a company that trusts its employees more. Or quit complaining to a bunch of slashdotters and present a true solution that benefits everyone. There are ways to have both security and usability.
Sorry... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd love to tell you but that would be a breach of security.
Your complaints are unconvincing. (Score:5, Interesting)
And, why, yes I am a network administrator, thanks. I'm lucky so far -- it's a small company, people are well-behaved, and I don't have to implement the policies you describe. I set up times for patches, there's no proxy yet and not too many firewall restrictions.
But if this place gets to be big enough that I can't count on collective intelligence and/or social pressure to keep people doing the right thing, I'm going to have to seriously consider policies just like the ones you describe, in order to keep things running as they need to -- because your complaints about the network not working 'cos of the latest virus outbreak are going to be a fuck of a lot louder than your complaints about your desktop machine not being allowed to be a mail server.
Fair security poorly adminstered (Score:5, Interesting)
We operate under a standard image architecture with updates and patches pushed out across the enterprise. Proxy servers are a necessary evil, but we are very reasonable on our block lists. (North Korean sites are discouraged along with Ebay...) This is for our unclassified network...
We learned the hard way too. Our first generation of machines were issued with padlocks on the cases and no CDROM drives...
Our IT system never compromises operations for security, and it never has to. Your IT staff may need a bit of fresh air, a few customer-centered workshops, and maybe some field trips to see how others work.
I feel your pain and wish you the best.
ay
The right balance is... (Score:4, Interesting)
What is the right balance between security and productivity, in the corporate IT environment?
Simple, more security. As more secure systems tend to run more reliably (less bugs) and with lower maintenance (removing root kits)than do less secure systems. Knowing most corporate environments, security tends to be lax.
Looking back at my company, 10 years ago, our machines were connected directly to the Internet, no proxy, no firewall, no antivirus software.
Yes, it was better more than ten years ago. If your computer was connected to the internet and caused someone problems you got kicked off for a week or two to think about it. Some were even blacklisted. And few if any ran Microsoft products as their gateways or terminals.
But the fact is with many hundreds of millions of Internet users today practicing self administration of an inherently insecure OS and trusting everything they click on -- without regard to others or their companies costs, security has had to evolve. And believe it or not, firewalls existed 10 years ago.
Then along comes the modern cowboy on an unmonitored cable connection hacking people for sport and profit. People hack computers just to send spam, and the system/ISP do nothing. They have long since abandoned kicking them off. The result is the problem is mow rampant.
have we become so secure that we're stifling our own ability to get things done?
Not at all, I have always kept important stuff on UNIX and Linux, and professionally manage them like I do at work. They haven't been hacked or wormed. I also tend to use "safe" tools as they also fail less as well are more secure.
But the optimum answer to be secure is to use securable tools and secure practices in what you do with your computer, something like safe sex.
Changing with the times (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say, compare the environment of the public internet to how it was ten years ago. Would you place your unpatched Windows machine directly on the public internet now? You have (roughly) ten minutes before another infected machine exploits one of the dozen out-of-the-box vulnerabilities that will allow them to run anything it wants on your PC. Not the case ten years ago.
Unfortunately, what was once a rather quiet suburb filled with geeks posting to Usenet and using Mosaic is now a post-nuclear, disease filled demilitarized zone where so many infected systems simply sit and try to infect others that a defenseless machine (or a network of them) is doomed.
Trying to manage security in this environment is a much more difficult job than it ever has been, and every month that goes by makes it more difficult. We shudder on the second Tuesday of every month at what new terrifying vulnerability Microsoft will tell us is in their product that's deployed on a hundred thousand machines on our network. We plead with other IT teams (networking, server admins, client admins) to implement our tools and software and protect the environment, but most of them get pushed to the back burner, either because it's "too invasive", i.e. it annoys the end user too much; or it costs too much; or they just don't have the time.
Then MS05-039 [microsoft.com] is released. We plead and plead for the patches to be distributed right away because of how severe the threat is. But users like the submitter can't stand to have their PC rebooted unless it's the absolute perfect time. Plus, we have 1700+ applications to test compatibility with the patch on, on hundreds of different PC environments. And it requires a service pack we don't have deployed everywhere, again, because it's too invasive.
Then Zotob.E [symantec.com] gets into the environment, and shuts down large sites in a matter of minutes. Then people scream even louder! Where is security? Why didn't they prevent this?
Because no one takes security seriously until it's too late.
From a security admin's perspective, we never have enough resources or management support to fully defend against even the most prevalent threats. Because security (and, as most admins know, IT in general) is underfunded. Because of (very real) scenarios like I described above, we have much more support than we did, and things are improving.
I guess my point is, step into our shoes for a few days. We don't enjoy being draconian - we like Google Groups as much as anyone else! But there are so many attack vectors that we have to be concerned about to protect the environment - and it only takes one. One of my co-workers is fond of the saying, "the hackers only have to be lucky once - you have to be lucky all of the time."
I guarantee every IT admin reading this is thinking, well, if you did this instead of that, if you had two hundred guys on your security team, with all of them testing patches, while listening to every end user complaint and rectifying their situation immediately, you could stay out of the end-user's way! Trust me - we know. We wish our teams were as stacked as they should be. Heck, we wish it wasn't necessary at all to have to defend against stuff like WMF [microsoft.com], where any end-user clicking on a link from their IM buddy could get exploited in a second... we wish it wasn't like this. We wish things could go back to how they were ten years ago. The reality is, this is the internet we built and we are fighting to protect our assets from.
Re:Technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Technology (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I work as a sysadmin, 90% of the solutions I apply to problems come from Google Groups.
Parent