Re: Securing workstations from IT guys

But a keylogger seems more than lazy, in my opinion.

If you can't trust the employees, then fire them.


Eric Marden
xentek: enlightened internet solutions
http://xentek.net/

On Nov 28, 2007, at 4:06 PM, Big Joe Jenkins wrote:

No. Company property is exactly that- even more so if your HR/ infosec folks are bright enough to force all employees to sign an acceptible use policy/statement of non-privacy stating such at their hire.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Petter Bruland wrote:

I think installing key logger software is stepping over the line.
Although it's company assets, isn't there some sort of privacy law that
makes this illegal?

-Petter

-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:listbounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Nick Vaernhoej
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:41 PM
To: security-basics
Subject: RE: Securing workstations from IT guys

A key logger? At what point are we crossing the line of common decency
towards co-workers?
I realize it is company property and all, but if you log access to
sensitive files and audit these logs do you really need to be more
intrusive?

This is not an attack, more a tagged on question to everyone?
Is keystroke logging commonly accepted by you?

Nick Vaernhoej
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."


-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:listbounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Vandenberg, Robert
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:18 AM
To: security-basics
Subject: RE: Securing workstations from IT guys


Those are good points.

I would recommend that you put in a keystroke logger program with the
written approval of your upper management on the PCs in question and
then download the logs each day. That way you are able to create a
forensics "e-Trail" that can be used to confront/counsel/etc. them. I
would also make sure that you look at your documenation and ensure that
each IT person has signed a document stating that they will not use
their abilities improperly. Combine those two and you have a means of
pursuing them legally.


This electronic transmission is intended for the addressee (s) named
above. It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or
otherwise protected from use and disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copy, or
dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in
reliance on its contents, or other use is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender that
this message was received in error and then delete this message.
Thank you.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Network protocol analyzers
    ... then download the logs each day. ... each IT person has signed a document stating that they will not use ... This electronic transmission is intended for the addressee named ... otherwise protected from use and disclosure. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • RE: Securing workstations from IT guys
    ... Securing workstations from IT guys ... then download the logs each day. ... This electronic transmission is intended for the addressee named ... otherwise protected from use and disclosure. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Network protocol analyzers
    ... I'm using Wireshark. ... then download the logs each day. ... This electronic transmission is intended for the addressee named ... otherwise protected from use and disclosure. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Proof of personal Internet Usage
    ... employees supposed to track it? ... internet and a printout of all the sites that she visited. ... If she goes to a page then the logs will show it and all its contents. ... If I visit news.bbc.co.uk at 1305 hours there will be a raft of entries ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Another users data is populated in my page
    ... load event with names of the employees of a department. ... But when a user from department "A" logs in, ... he is shocked to see employees of other department in his list box i.e. ... department etc) in an unsafe way so that another user could overwrite the ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)