Re: Protecting users from themselves

From: jmnugent (ten.tsacmoc_at_tnegunmj)
Date: 08/28/03


Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:41:23 GMT

Well...because the human element is unpredictable, there will always be
security holes in a human run system,
However..here are my thoughts...

First..I agree with you. You cant make it so tight and restrictive that
people rebel and put effort into getting around it.
My theory is you have to try to make (or help) people understand WHY your
doing something.

Whether this is by having a big employee conference, or revising and handing
out new employee handbooks,
it all depends on how you approach it.

(presentation voice)
paraphrasing----" Attention everyone, we are instituting new computer
security guidelines, X, Y and Z
for reasons X1, Y1 and Z1. We had many team meetings and discusions,
reviewed many different options,
but feel these new rules are the best solution possible. These new security
guidelines are being put in place to help protect our business,
make the workplace a safer enviroment. yadda yadda yadda...

I know there's alot of cliche and "Dilbert" talk in that....but you have to
convince the listeners that you did the research, reviewed all possible
options,
and the solution being implemented is as fair as possible and the best thing
overall for the company and employee's.

Hope that helps
-jmnugent

"Duane Morin" <dmorin@morinfamily.com> wrote in message
news:554f29fd.0308271830.e2f4948@posting.google.com...
> I've got a magazine article assignment on corporate anti-virus policy,
> and one of the specific questions they'd like me to address is how to
> keep users from being the gaping hole in any secure system. Beyond
> some thoughts on "don't make the policy so restrictive that they go
> out of their way to get around it because they're pissed at the
> inconvenience" and "Nobody seems to think that the P2P program they're
> running on their office PC is the cause of any problems.." I'm not
> sure what else to write on the subject. Anybody got any suggestions
> for me? How can you get users to not break everything (accidentally
> or deliberately) that you're trying to accomplish by securing your
> system?
>
> If this is the wrong place to post, sorry. I posted to alt.comp.virus
> and was told that the "real" virus fighters didn't hang out there
> anymore. But comp.virus is moderated and seems to only get 1 post or
> so per month.
>
> Duane



Relevant Pages

  • Re: 265,000 new zombie PCs a day!
    ... Security should not be handled at the user level, ... Apple hasn't fixed the "entire problem" on OS X. ... Now in that list are security holes that would allow someone to take ... wide open to attack if the user had all updates and refused to protect their ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OS X "Security" myths
    ... >>> The difference is, of course, that most of OSX security holes ... >>> Windows have been found by hackers who have exploited them. ... > It's the *only* thing that comes up in discussions about OSX security. ... >>> security holes in windows prior to them being exploited. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OS X "Security" myths
    ... >> The difference is, of course, that most of OSX security holes ... >> Windows have been found by hackers who have exploited them. ... > it's true that *some* security holes in OS X have been found as a result ... It's the *only* thing that comes up in discussions about OSX security. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Apple patches 26, 43, and 22 holes in 3 different months [Re: M$ fixes 26 Security Holes]
    ... Microsoft Fixes Record 26 Security Holes ... Apple patches at least 3 flaws in AirPort on Sept 21 ... the issues these "Security Updates" from Apple patched. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: [PATCH] coredump - as root not only if euid switched
    ... >> Solaris can keep their security holes. ... > Aix,MacOsX and True64 dumped core with ownership of user ...
    (Linux-Kernel)