funsec mailing list archives
Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology?
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:13:17 -0500
--On Wednesday, October 12, 2005 14:01:38 -0700 Blue Boar <BlueBoar () thievco com> wrote:
Am I allowed to abuse the list for market research purposes?
I guess so. You just did. ;-)
Yes, as far as it goes. For example. I have about 5500 Windows boxes. (All of this is not counting the endless student machines that come and go - most laptops.) At any given time, maybe 90% of those are members of the domain. That leaves 550 boxes that are "rogues" (in that I don't have access or control of them.) If we could install agents on every box (big if) then we'd have better control of the environment. But ifs, in edu, are political problems that require negotiation and committee meetings and all sorts of fun stuff.Paul, in theory, is an agent-based system useful to you for these purposes? So that all the boxes can check themselves, and report in continually?
The two biggest problems are student machines (which we're not allowed to touch for liability reasons) and "grant" machines (meaning big huge important professor so and so just got this humongous grant and who the hell are you to tell me I can't put this machine on the network without your approval?)
Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology?, (continued)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Jordan Wiens (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Aviram Jenik (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Blue Boar (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Roland Dobbins (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Aviram Jenik (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Jordan Wiens (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 12)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Blue Boar (Oct 12)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 12)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Blue Boar (Oct 12)
- Message not available
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 13)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Robert Edmonds (Oct 20)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 20)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Eduardo Tongson (Oct 20)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 11)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 12)
- Re: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 12)
- RE: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Aditya Deshmukh (Oct 11)
- RE: so, is I[dp]S a STUPID technology? Paul Schmehl (Oct 12)