Re: internal messanging / Re: MSN Messenger
From: David Fox (dfox138@hotmail.com)Date: 01/05/02
- Next message: David Fox: "Re: MSN Messenger"
- Previous message: Doug Ransom: "Re: MSN Messenger"
- Next in thread: C Colon: "Re: internal messanging / Re: MSN Messenger"
- Reply: C Colon: "Re: internal messanging / Re: MSN Messenger"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "David Fox" <dfox138@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 21:38:30 GMT
Root;
Thanks for your input. They are valuable.
I am trying to build a "business case" here -
There are a number of "issues" as I see IM (instant messaging) need to
address -
Productivity, as C Colon pointed out, is an HR and/or General Management
issue.
Software configuration, network connectivity and performance,
infrastructure, etc. is an IT issue, as rightly pointed out in your message.
Company information confidentiality, data authenticity, etc. is information
security issue.
Many thanks again.
"root" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:RRFZ7.182745$BX4.10570010@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> I would be wondering what alternatives there are to MSN and AIM... I tried
> out IRC with my people (internal server), but they didnt like it (although
I
> used pirch98 for demonstration, that has a very appealing interface.. but
> ppl just dont want to think when they wanna do something).
>
> fact is, it is not an option to try to ban IMessanging in general, if you
> are in a bigger corp.. however, if you are able to present an worthwhile
> alternative to AIM (no, not ICQ:) and are able to control the traffic
> somewhat, that would be interesting..
>
> I personally tried MSN, I thought its too much hassle, too much to fudge
> around with in order to get it set up.. and you know,,, MS product..
hotmail
> accounts,, passport,, nah.. almost seems like going from bad to worse..
>
> I tried out the aimfilter / proxy... but seems to be too unstable, users
> dont wanna install things like that..
>
> and no, I cant just tell the ppl to drop it... new to the corp, gotta work
> _with_ them :) at least for now :) :)
>
> "David Fox" <dfox138@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:I4uZ7.4608$h2c.3332@news2.bloor.is...
> > What types of security risk and/or vulnerabilities could one company be
> > exposed when it "endorses/sanctions" MSN Messenger as a communications
> means
> > with *business partners*? Any input are appreciated.
> >
> > As I understand, MSN Messenger requires users using Hotmail accounts,
> which
> > in turn may use .net or Microsoft Passport. In this regards, same as
> other
> > authentication scheme, once the users' id and password is known, .....
> >
> > Secondly, the "chat" is not encrypted, then it leads to confidentiality
> > issue.
> >
> > Thirdly, if file transfered is enabled in the future, the files may not
be
> > encrypted unless PGP or other programs used.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
- Next message: David Fox: "Re: MSN Messenger"
- Previous message: Doug Ransom: "Re: MSN Messenger"
- Next in thread: C Colon: "Re: internal messanging / Re: MSN Messenger"
- Reply: C Colon: "Re: internal messanging / Re: MSN Messenger"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|