RE: Securing workstations from IT guys

["Nick Vaernhoej" <nick.vaernhoej () capitalcardservices com>]

The point you make I believe is shared by most(everyone?).
What I am questioning is how is your evidence from a key logger
preferred to an audit log entry saying John Doe accessed spreadsheet.xls
from IP 312.423.534.534?

With the audit log you can make your point.
With a key log the offender can say he typed gibberish just to be a
rebel. And you are back to basing a decision on opinion.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
On Behalf Of Vandenberg, Robert
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:02 AM
To: security-basics
Subject: RE: Securing workstations from IT guys

Nice if the world could be that easy.  But nowadays in our litigious
society, not going through a through investigation before taking the
appropriate actions is going to invite a wrongful termination lawsuit.
It is better to have all of your ducks in line and get all of the
evidence you can before you bring the offending party in and fire them.


-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
On Behalf Of Eric Marden
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:02 PM
To: security-basics
Subject: 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 () securityfocus com
> > [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
> > 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 () securityfocus com
> > [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
> > 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.


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.