Slashdot Mirror


Dealing With Laptops in a Business Network?

lanimreT asks: "Notebooks are a large problem for IT managers. They carry viruses and other malware back into the network and are less reliable than desktop PCs for more than one reason. Yet, every employee MUST have one for his job. How have other IT managers dealt with the various problems that notebooks create?"

106 comments

  1. Here's a start for you. by grub · · Score: 5, Informative

    Put your laptops on a DMZ-like subnet. Don't allow unrestricted access from that to the rest of the LAN. ie.: only allow them access to your servers and other necessary resources. If they don't need to access Bertha's PC in Accounts Receivables then block it.

    Block spyware sites on your firewall and log it. If you see a laptop trying to get to $SPYWARESITE you know they've installed crap. Go remove it.

    Make sure they have antivirus and antispyware stuff installed, up to date and running. A lot of people turn it off because "it slows my machine down"

    Ideally you won't let them have admin access. Far too often laptops show up with Kazaa or other shit installed because they let their kids play with the machines at home. Bad move, it's company property with company information but many people think the other way around. Assuming you're the IT manager you should have every right to remove such crap. Check your policies first.

    Very important: Make a log of everything you have to fix If and when you start to enforce policy you need hard data to back up your actions.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Here's a start for you. by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      DMZ-like subnets are a great idea but really, if you lock down the laptop before giving it to the employee and insure that they can't install crap or otherwise modify and crap on your rock_solid configuration through local/group/security policys, then you have one less thing to worry about. I haven't really had more of a problem with laptops than I have had with PCs.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    2. Re:Here's a start for you. by grub · · Score: 1

      I like the DMZ method as another layer of security. A laptop that has been on the road for a while may not have had updates installed. So the person hooks it up when they get back home from a trip and whammo the latest Windows worm gets them.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    3. Re:Here's a start for you. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Block spyware sites on your firewall and log it.

      What's the best list of sites to check against?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Here's a start for you. by grub · · Score: 2, Informative

      We have a bunch in our PIX configs. Here's a few to start (and some may be old or broken, we don't actively check) I usually google around for the spyware places. Not sure how this will wrap...
      : www.xcelent.biz evilness. see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/22/opt-out_ex ploit/
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any host 61.218.79.53

      : gator.com [SPYWARE]
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 64.94.89.0 255.255.255.0
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 204.238.120.0 255.255.255.0
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 64.162.206.0 255.255.255.0
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 63.197.87.0 255.255.255.0
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 216.30.17.0 255.255.255.0
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 208.184.198.0 255.255.255.128
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 216.141.76.128 255.255.255.248
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 64.152.73.0 255.255.255.0
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 66.35.229.0 255.255.255.0
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 64.152.64.0 255.255.255.0

      : cydoor
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any host 209.10.17.133
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 209.73.225.0 255.255.255.0
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any host 212.29.215.3
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any host 209.11.42.240

      : friendgreetings.com "worm", see
      :http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcente r/venc/data/friendgreetings.html
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any host 207.21.232.104
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any host 65.89.168.69
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 216.34.38.64 255.255.255.192
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any host 216.65.63.139

      : activex viruslike crud, see http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-1026228.html
      acc ess-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 216.187.107.0 255.255.255.0

      : www.freescratchandwin.com <- spyware, logger, hijacker.
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any 206.161.193.0 255.255.255.0

      : zotob worm. Mainly for detection internally. grg 20050817
      :diabl0.turkcoders.net port 8080 normally.
      access-list CSM-acl-Ginside deny ip any host 84.244.5.237
      etc etc etc
      --
      Trolling is a art,
    5. Re:Here's a start for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Bad move, it's company property with company information but many people think the other way around.
      So they think it's company information with company property?
    6. Re:Here's a start for you. by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1
      I've done something similar to this on my home network. We have 8 PCs there, for various purposes, and wireless which friends use when they come over.

      Basically I have two subnets - 192.168.60.x (trusted) and 192.168.61.x (untrusted). Any computer that I don't explicitly put in the trust segment goes on 192.168.61.x, and can only send data out to the internet.

      Untrust doesn't get SMB access to my server, ssh, nothing. They also can't communicate with the trust segment unless the computer on the trust segment initiates communication. The trust segment can connect to anything on the network.

      I only put computers that are in my complete control and on my SMB domain into the trust segment, everyone else is untrusted. It works really well to keep the computers clean, because if someone comes in with a worm, they can access the internet but can't propogate it to the house computers. I uh, also have my 16 year old sister's computer on the untrust segment. ;)

      There is a downside - if someone sets their IP to 192.168.60.x, they will be able to get on the trust segment, and there's really no way I can avoid that without putting managed switches in. They won't however be able to get out to the internet because I also check the MAC addresses in my IPFW rules - I have a rule that denys all traffic to my server on the trust segment unless it's one of the appropriate MACs.

      Despite these few problems, most people that are there will have no idea how to get around it, so hey, it works.

      Back on the article's subject, I'd imagine in a business setting where you have managed switches you'll be able to set something up which would be much more effective than what I've done. Since you have the capability of seperate vlans, set up a trust and untrust vlan similar to what I mentioned, and do MAC filtering of untrusted devices on the switch level so untrusted devices get shut off if they're trying to use a trusted IP. That'll effectively block infected laptops from infecting your main computers, as they won't be able to communicate to those machines. And if they do choose to supply their own IP on the trusted segment, the switch will shut their port off or deny all their traffic. This of course will increase the help desk calls, but for the added security I think it'd work.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    7. Re:Here's a start for you. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Excellent start. Thanks.

      I'm hoping somebody has a text or DNS blacklist like we have for spammers. Just one of those things that benefits from collective effort.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Here's a start for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You have a false sense of security. The two subnets share the same broadcast domain. The second any malware uses any protocol other than IP, you're fucked.

      Really, VLANs aren't that expensive to set up, especially with the kind of setup you have. You don't need 100 managed switches. You need one. You can pick up a bunch of old Bay Networks gear on eBay on the cheap. I'd recommend a 350T. It is a sixteen port 10/100 switch capable of trunking and VLANS. Configurable through SNMP and a pretty straightforward text interface through a serial connection. Definitely easier for the networking newbie to set up than Catalysts (especially the old, fucked up 1900 series!). Should put you back about $40 or less.

    9. Re:Here's a start for you. by grub · · Score: 1

      I forgot about this one too. At home I took the hosts file which you can get for Spybot Search & Destroy and used some of the names from there. Of course you'll have to nslookup machines from the hosts file and add the real IPs to your firewall.

      Googling for that will get you some nice hosts files.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    10. Re:Here's a start for you. by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1
      I'll definitely look into that switch. And yeah, I'm aware of the broadcast problem and the fact that my setup isn't fool proof at all. I have yet to come across a worm that doesn't use IP though. I also don't have anything other than IP enabled on any of the machines.

      I have a question about the switch, how would that work if I only had one switch, since I have hubs in some areas of the house. Wouldn't it make sense to replace each hub with a switch, because I have trusted and untrusted devices on the same hub in certain places? I'm curious about this now. I really don't have much experience with vlans and how that works, so any info would be appreciated.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    11. Re:Here's a start for you. by Dan+Ost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The laptops at work come locked down and you can't do anything until a tech
      visits. Rather than wait for days until a tech comes, some people wipe the
      drive and reinstall windows, thus negating any benefit of locking the machine
      down in the first place.

      The moral of the story is if you have access to the hardware, then the machine
      isn't really locked down.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    12. Re:Here's a start for you. by karnal · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you attempt to wipe the machines where I work, you shoot yourself in the foot.

      At that point, if you want to install any work related software, you need to be a member of the domain/active directory. If not, you don't get connected, either while in the office or via VPN.

      Of which, you can't install the necessary VPN software unless you are in the office, or we ship you a cd.

      We haven't had anyone try to get around this yet. I think it's safe to say the people who work on them in my business realize they'd be down a lot harder if they tried to....

      --
      Karnal
    13. Re:Here's a start for you. by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Put your laptops on a DMZ-like subnet.

      In our office most people have laptops instead of desktops. They need to interoperate.

      Make sure they have antivirus and antispyware stuff installed, up to date and running. A lot of people turn it off because "it slows my machine down"

      It does. Our administrator tried to turn on a policy whereby several times a day, the antivirus would start up. Problem, for some machines, it takes hours to run. The developers almost killed him because the machines were unusable during work-hours. Some of us have been using computers for a very long time without getting viruses.
      Ideally you won't let them have admin access.

      Yes. That's right. You want to ensure that your staff can't do things like install software or actually use the (#*&%( machine.

      As much as it sounds like the perfect recipe for a clean and harmonious network, draconian policies by admins which make it impossible to do anything just lead to people ignoring/circumventing them.

      My direct experience with such policies is they actually inhibit the ability of users to get anything bloody well done. Which is fine if you're the BOFH. Not fine if you're the one trying to get your work done.

      Making sure no machine can talk to any other machine, and making sure the users get the least utility out of their machines is not a strategy that helps anyone but you.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:Here's a start for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hubs would have to go. Here is why. A hub is often referred to as a multi-port repeater. What goes in one port is sent out through all the other ports. That means that if you have trusted and un-trusted machines on the same hub, they can send electrical signals to each other. If they can establish a layer one connection (the physical layer, the actual wiring and signal going over the wire) to each other, they can communicate through the higher levels of the OSI model. In your current network, you just broke layer three if layer three is IP.

      The problem with switching out all the hubs is that now you're spending much more money. It also makes things a tad more complicated. A VLAN pretty much allows you to break up a switch into several separate switches. Of course, how do you get your data from all the various VLANS over one wire? You have to set up trunking, which can be incredibly easy or incredibly difficult depending on the switches you're using, especially if they are from different vendors. If you only have eight computers plus a wireless access point, I'd just throw a wire to each one. Of course, that is easier said than done. I know doing wire runs correctly is a royal pain in the butt, especially in a finished house.

    15. Re:Here's a start for you. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The laptops at work come locked down and you can't do anything until a tech visits. Rather than wait for days until a tech comes, some people wipe the drive and reinstall windows, thus negating any benefit of locking the machine down in the first place.

      If your users are smart enough to reinstall Windows are you really worried about them getting Spyware and crap onto your network?

      Besides, haven't you ever heard of a BIOS password and removing the CD/Floppy from the boot order?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:Here's a start for you. by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      A BIOS password is easily defeated if you have access to the
      hardware (usually a jumper for a desktop, often a switch under
      the keyboard for a laptop).

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    17. Re:Here's a start for you. by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      The latest? Try one from months ago...I ended up removing SASSER from my brother's business laptop not too long ago. It seems he hadn't used that particular one online for several months, and didn't see anything wrong with hooking it up to the Internet without patching it. It lasted about fifteen minutes.

    18. Re:Here's a start for you. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      A BIOS password is easily defeated if you have access to the hardware (usually a jumper for a desktop, often a switch under the keyboard for a laptop).

      And again I go back to my point that the employees who are smart enough to reset the BIOS password on a laptop are the ones that are least likely to pose a security risk. In fact they are probably the ones least likely to want to reinstall Windows in the first place.

      And where I work if you bypass my security arrangements (be it BIOS passwords or lack of admin access on your company laptop) I'll report it to my boss, who will report it to your boss, who will report it to HR, who will finally fire your ass.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:Here's a start for you. by SlamMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullocks. No one, outside of developers and other IT staff, needs to install software. If you needs software installed, contact the IT staff, who'll take care of it.

      Likewise, you're machine shouldn't talk to any other users machine directly. You should be talking to servers.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
  2. insurrection by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nip the virus problem in the bud: keep OSX up to date on all the laptops.

    *ducks*

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
  3. Risk management by Anonymous+Cowdog · · Score: 1

    There are just some risks that have to be accepted if you are going to do business. Other /.ers will hopefully point out all kinds of useful ways to mitigate the risks, and that is a good thing, but no system will ever be perfect. So there has to be some way to judge other than perfect-vs-flawed. Good approaches will strike a balance between letting people get things done, and having security. Don't assume you can get to perfection, but don't let that stop you from trying to make things better.

    1. Re:Risk management by markjx · · Score: 0

      My employer took an alternative view: No laptops.

      They decided that the extra cost of the devices (compared to desktops) and the security risks make them too much of a risk. So, we don't have any. As for that balance between letting people get things done and security? Well, it doesn't really exist. It's all about security.

      Except for all of the managers that have managed to get them. But, that's a different story...

  4. VPN + personal firewall mandatory by neillewis · · Score: 1

    Make them use a VPN and personal firewall at all times. With broadband, thisis easier than ever. Sizing your VPN setup is the hardest part.

  5. Install Linux by schoolsucks · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously. Any IT manager worth his salt knows that Linux is infinetly more secure than Windows. Therefore, any IT manager who cares about his network and his job, would only deploy laptops with Linux on them. As far as the users are concerned, if they are too dumb to not learn Linux, they should be fired anyways.

    1. Re:Install Linux by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1
      I know I shouldn't feed this troll, but I'm going to.

      That's a very elitist attitude. What about the people in marketing and sales who are likely to be clueless about computers have to learn something totally new to them? If they aren't a serious computer geek, they get fired?

      I don't know what kind of world you think we live in, but Linux is not for everyone. Period. It has a wonderful place in the server world, and for some desktop users who really are into computers, but for your average sales drone, it has no place.

      People will use what they're familiar with, and if you try to teach them something new, they will be very reluctant to learn it.

      Also, what about central administration of the system? With Linux that's nearly impossible to do for anything other than users and groups. Try rolling out patches and security fixes to 1000 Linux computers in one swipe. That's pretty much impossible to do. On the other hand, Microsoft's Active Directory does a wonderful job of this, as does Apple's Remote Desktop. I've yet to see anything in Linux that even comes close to this functionality.

      Another feature that you won't find in a Linux environment that's very important to corporations is Exchange. People want their shared calendars, people want their central user directory, and people want to be able to simply type in a person's name to send them an email, instead of remembering a full email address.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    2. Re:Install Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Any IT manager worth his salt knows that OS X is infinetly more secure than Linux. Therefore, any IT manager who cares about his network and his job, would only deploy laptops with OS X on them. As far as the users are concerned, if they are too dumb to not use Linux, they should be fired anyways.

    3. Re:Install Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you are aren't connected to the infinet? Then are you too dumb to not use Linux? I think they should be fired sideways, not anyways.

    4. Re:Install Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two simple solutions to the patch issue:

      a) Rsync. Seriously. Rsync the good stuff to the laptops - all the user's crap should be in $HOME, so rsync the current

      b) Run debian and maintain your own local package source, so when you have your 1000 computers do apt-get upgrade they don't slam the public ones.

    5. Re:Install Linux by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      I think you're both right and wrong -- right that Linux isn't the answer yet, but wrong on why.

      Yes, it's an elitist attitude. All central control of dispersed machines needs to be or it's a nightmare. We're in the business of restricting the user's ability to do things, and more importantly, to add things.

      No, these people really SHOULD be able to learn such a system. A. People are more versitile than you think, and B. The original poster is right -- if any computer literacy is involved in their job description, they should be able to learn a new system, else you're bogged down to one system forever.

      (Sales folk should be both computer literate and willing to use systems, if corporate tells them to, because we need to be able to see where they're going and who they're talking to, and what leads they get and pursue. We need to be able to project end of month sales based on the behavior of the salespeople, we need to see how promotions are working in middle of month, not just when the paper-work comes in at 4pm on the 30th, and we need to minimize that paperwork in the first place by using paperless ordering systems.)

      But learning a system doesn't mean being able to do everything you used to do. That's the whole point of this elitist way we have to do things. They will be MORE restricted. Period. They won't have admin rights, they won't be able to modify the OS, thy won't be able to add just anything they find that looks neato on the web.

      (And Linux is a well designed OS, which means it can run scripts on a timer or on startup, and therefor can self-patch. While that may not be a just-works-right-out-of-the-box-solution
      it's very doable with some initial work.)

      So on those levels I agree completely with the original poster.

      But I think you're right that it's still not a working solution. And that's because we don't have all the apps we need. Our users need, rather. On one hand, Windows is a virus like many claim the GPL to be. You put Windows boxes in the headquarters, and you wind up needing Windows boxes as laptops to interact with those. (You are ABSOLUTLEY RIGHT about Exchange interoperablility.) I hate it, but it's true. And on the other hand, the best sales automation programs are under Windows, and we want them to have the best. So our salesfolk in the field will have Windows boxes for the forseeable future.

      We'd need to get rid of most of the central Windows boxes to accomplish this, and we'd need to get very high-quality sales apps under Linux.

      But if we had those, and could dump Windows on our laptops, our support staff's life would be easier, we'd spend less on laptops, we'd have more information about how our workers function and control over how our workers function, so as to maximize our investment. (Nightmare as that is in a society in general, those last two are important goals for a buisiness.)

    6. Re:Install Linux by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      I don't know who rated the message you resonded to as troll, guess we are getting troll moderators. There is a lot of truth to it. But to your last message:

      I don't know what kind of world you think we live in, but Linux is not for everyone. Period. It has a wonderful place in the server world, and for some desktop users who really are into computers, but for your average sales drone, it has no place.

      Now what in business today requires Windows on the PC part? Are we sure our dependance on Microsoft is like heroin? Cannot order entry be done through Linux? Cannot a Linux user surf the web? Can a Linux user not use Java based applications to do busiess?

      About the biggest thing business users loose with Linux is users can download Windows spyware and make it work. The WMV file from a porn site might not play. The company will not have to spend as much time and resources maintaining the thing.

      Business has lost sight of what the PC is for. It isn't entertainment for 8 hours on non-business activities we should be focusing on. It is a work tool. Users who download spyware that compromize their PC should be fired for being utterly stupid and out of control. If not fired, written up and the repairs charged to their managers department.

      And there is an old saying, to change gives you the chance of becoming better. Resistance to change is the admission you don't want to get better. People overrate the negative of change and unrate it's beneits. More importantly, people get over change.

      So once we realize the current PC model costs too much in the corporations, maybe more will say no to "How much do you want to pay today" mentality. PONCE - Price of not changing and evolving is stagnation. Windows users change all the time, DOS 2 thru 6, Win 2.0, W3.0, W3.1, W95, W98, W2K, W2003, Win Me, XP, XP2, and soon vista. We change, we must and FUD to the cost of change.

    7. Re:Install Linux by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1
      Short reply here. I agree completely with everything you've said there. The only thing that most businesses need that isn't avaliable on Linux yet is Exchange. Migrating from Exchange to another form of groupware software is hell. Not to mention the hell that is setting up Exchange in the first place, but that's a different story. There's a lot of nice features Exchange has that many businesses want to use.

      I agree that most of the reason for not wanting to switch is because they're afraid of change, but there are a few smaller things such as Exchange that keep it from happening any faster. Also, most businesses have netadmins who are absolutely clueless about security, and computers in general. I have a friend who works for a company whose IT director is a "FreeBSD admin." I use quotes because the man has no clue how to install FreeBSD from scratch.

      This type of thing is commonplace, and I think until we get a new generation of people in IT, changes like this aren't going to happen.

      Another example. Everyone I work with at University of Miami is completely stuck on Windows, and don't want to change. There's three FreeBSD servers in my department, two Linux ones, and those are RHEL. The rest are all Windows 2000 server. This isn't going to change anytime soon because all that the people there know is Windows. Not to mention the total lack of security such as using an unencrypted VNC session to admin one of our Win2k servers from anywhere on campus... This isn't an exxageration, the only people who really know FreeBSD and Linux well are my boss and myself.

      Once we get people running IT departments who are familiar with Linux or BSD, we'll see that change starting to happen faster.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    8. Re:Install Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that most businesses need that isn't avaliable on Linux yet is Exchange.

      For exchange, I would take a look at Evolution, which the client is available for Linux to use an Exchange server and it has support for PGP as well. There is also a Evolution server but it costs.

  6. laptop == teh suck by vbrtrmn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every employee needs a laptop?

    I work for a large company, my boss excidedly says, "Hey do you want to trade your desktop in for a laptop?" I sternly reply, "Hell No!" Confused he asks, "Well why not?" I respond, "Well, I don't want to work from home and I don't want to be responsible for a $2000 computer which isn't mine."

    Now I have 4 desktops under my desk :)

    --
    it's a sig, wtf?
    1. Re:laptop == teh suck by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Yes you need a laptop. Very useful for meetings, everytime the subject goes to something uninteresting you can get work done, and then pull back to the meeting instantly when it becomes useful. Not as productive as you would be when not at the meeting, but a lot more interesting and productive than the typical meeting.

      When in a meeting with co-workers (the boss is not there), it is more useful, you can take notes, look-up code, or search for information without leaving the meeting.

      Now if the choice is 1 laptop, or a desktop with 2 monitors, take the laptop. However a laptop is very useful even if it never leaves work.

    2. Re:laptop == teh suck by objekt · · Score: 1

      Now I have 4 desktops under my desk :)

      Then you can't really call them "desktops," can you? ;-)

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
    3. Re:laptop == teh suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      *raises hand*

      I know! I know!

      Floortop

      Deskunder

      um, well, that is all.

      AC

    4. Re:laptop == teh suck by lanimreT · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatly no, I was being sarcastic. It didn't come accross very clearly though. many of my employees *think* they need a laptop when really they just need to work less.

      -Zan

      --
      @LogicalMethods | www.sneaksneak.org
  7. security and malware by romit_icarus · · Score: 1
    For company security make sure that *all* sensitive date is centrally located which can only be accessed outside office premises using a VPN. Make use of web-apps rather than on client-side apps (like colalborative document management, central project management etc)

    For malware, make sure that there are firm groupwide subscriptions to antivirus and spyware programs. Many of the good packages allow for mandatory updates, and they should be insisted upon in a corporate set up.

    1. Re:security and malware by dreamer-of-rules · · Score: 1

      That doesn't address the problem of users bringing their laptops into the pristine office network after being on those filthy home networks. Spyware and anti-virus help prevent only common viruses and spyware, but does not stop new viruses, or plug security holes.. (think about it). It also does nothing about customized trojans, say from a competitor, a mistress, a low-traffic malicious website. Do you make sure that all users are running Adobe Acrobat 7.0.3? The latest Real Player? Otherwise, a targetted malicious PDF can be sent by a competitor or hacker to the users email, and bam! --hacked. How do you protect the network when they do get infected, and bring the laptop into the office?

      --
      Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
  8. Deepfreeze by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Informative
    Great program, reboot your PC, and all changes are reset. It is so much fun to load Kazaa onto a computer, reboot it, and it is all gone.. Of course, you have to get them trained to save absolutely everything to a Pen drive..

    Actually, i think there is a configuration to allow it to make changes to a certain folder, ie, c:\data that will not be wiped on reboot. Lots of fun for viruses too.. Had a lab machine infected with something, (never did look), rebooted the pc, and the virus went away...

    Faronics sells this.

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:Deepfreeze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and what if you want to get some real work done?

      Programs like that work well for people who use the computer as a glorified typewriter. But do you expect me to have to rebuild my development environment from scratch every time I reboot?

      People who know what they're doing with their computer shouldn't be subjected to BS like that.

    2. Re:Deepfreeze by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 0, Troll

      But it does seem like the perfect solution for your TYPICAL laptop user, the one who uses it to check email and play Solitaire in meetings.

    3. Re:Deepfreeze by itsownreward · · Score: 1

      We looked in depth at Deep Freeze where I work (a healthcare provider). It wasn't suitable for a number of reasons:

      • We have a lot of one-of-a-kind apps from vendors that didn't work with it. Sure, you can say if the vendor won't fix it, get another vendor, but tell GE when they hold a lot of patents on something and are the only vendor for something. They have you by the balls and they know it. Same for Ernst and Young with financials apps, etc.
      • Patching. There's no good way to apply patches via SMS or Altiris with Deep Freeze installed. Sure, you can set a period where you can install them late at night, but being a hospital system, we're a 24/7 shop. You want to take a radiology, emergency room or gamma knife machine down like that?
      • Whining doctors love to play political games with the staff, including the amateur hackers (er, residents and interns).

      Faronics said that this would improve with their enterprise product, but one never materialized. We also tried a solution from Altiris, but it wasn't suitable, either.

      We've just come to a point where clinical workstations are standardized and locked down by a GPO. If it's not working right due to whatever reason, we send a field tech out and he blows it away with a fresh image, adds it to the domain and sets up a couple small things. Takes about thirty minutes.

    4. Re:Deepfreeze by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Programs like that work well for people who use the computer as a glorified typewriter. But do you expect me to have to rebuild my development environment from scratch every time I reboot?

      Nope. You store your dev. env. in a "thawed" partition. In all of the lockdown programs I've used, you have the option of creating a partion that is not blown away on reboot. Deepfreeze and similar programs, when properly configured, are exceptional tools. They offer great virus protection, and even better spyware protection. The key is to make sure the inital images is put together properly.

      You can do patching & updates as well. You can schedule a period of time to unfreeze the machine, send your patches and updates, then lockup the machine.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    5. Re:Deepfreeze by osssmkatz · · Score: 1

      It looks like they do have an enterprise version. Can you explain exactly what didn't work?

      --Sam

  9. "Windows Terminal Server"? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering if it would be feasible to lock the laptops WAY down (bare minimum of applications to connect) and have people use "Terminal Services" to operate an internal computer rather than having everything installed on the "remote" computer.

    Seems like it would be easier to control and avoid problems that way (and if you use NomachineNX, you can use the same "terminal" client for VNC and X11 logins as well...)

    1. Re:"Windows Terminal Server"? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's possible. But then the laptops would be useless away from a network connection. If wireless IP ever becomes really pervasive, we'll undoubtable see people doing this.

    2. Re:"Windows Terminal Server"? by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      Or, why not leave the laptops wide open, but filter all traffic from them on your corporate network except for the port for Terminal Services. The managers would complain about synchronization issues, no doubt, but c'est la vie.

      Other than that we just have to keep AV/AS stuff running and up to date, and have scary policies regarding installation of non-approved applications to hopefully cut that down.

      But please put Winamp on that list. Let's be realistic too, okay?

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    3. Re:"Windows Terminal Server"? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      It would definitely reduce the functionality of the laptop away from networks, but wouldn't necessarily make them useless. "Windows Server 2003" appears to support a redirected local drive which appears as a "share" on the terminal session. Users who are going to be away from a network but NEED to work on something can use that to copy the file to the local drive before they disconnect, and then re-upload when they reconnect later.

      That would slightly compromise the "nothing stays on the local system" but at least data that gets pulled down to the local system has to be done EXPLICITLY rather than happening by default...

    4. Re:"Windows Terminal Server"? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      If you've locked down the system so that only the terminal server can run, how are you supposed to work on the file?

    5. Re:"Windows Terminal Server"? by karearea · · Score: 1
      This is what I would love to be able to do.

      By installing the bare minimum (maybe even linux running from compact flash) and locking it down so they are only allowed to connect to a terminal server certainly has it's advantages.

      They would need to be able to connect through ... LAN, dialup, broadband, wireless (office, motel, airport, web cafe etc), mobile data, directly or via a VPN. Of course, those tools would need to be installed and have a nicely locked down configuration that they can't f$#% with.

      The downside to this is when there is no-coverage and an element of downtime (eg sitting on a plane, yeah I know there is some talk of it internet access happening on some flights) they have an effective paper weight.

      Installing applications so they can work offline effectively negates the cut down, restricted nature of the setup. It's not a show stopper if all they have is a simple text editor and can organise themselves. Being able to copy text to and from the terminal server session and a local store before they go offline and when they get back online can mean that that work can be done with no network access.

      As for those of our staff that think that they need a $3000 mp3 player - they have been told to rethink! They don't even have a CD drive installed - just wish I could work out how to disable USB flash drives under Win2k.

    6. Re:"Windows Terminal Server"? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      I've been wondering if it would be feasible to lock the laptops WAY down (bare minimum of applications to connect) and have people use "Terminal Services" to operate an internal computer rather than having everything installed on the "remote" computer.

      Kind of defeats the purpose of having a laptop, though...

  10. Simple by booch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just point out to the notebook users that they're working overtime from home for free.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  11. Treat them like internet machines by chris_mahan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Treat them like machines on the internet, since you have no control over the machine itself. (I've seen people reinstall the OS because they can't get their kid's game to play.)

    Assume the machines have viruses and trojans, and spyware throught the wazoo.

    Oh, have a policy that every 4 months, people have to turn in their machines in for maintenance and reassignment. They won't think of these machines as "theirs" and they won't install crap (like their palm-pilot synch software).

    I'm still out on filesystem encryption. I think it does not really block determined hackers, especially if they have government funding.

    Finally, the reason why people get paid good money to find solutions is that these problems are not trivial. Good luck.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

    1. Re:Treat them like internet machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they won't install crap (like their palm-pilot synch software).

      If they have a Palm Pilot, and use it for work, then they need the sync software. Why the hostility against Palm?

    2. Re:Treat them like internet machines by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      If the Palm-pilot is a company-provided device, then the software will also be available.

      If the palm-pilot belongs to the employee then they can buy their own laptop and keep it synched on that.

      Nothing against palm-pilots. They are great devices for many people.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  12. Policy and control by martin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Find out what the risks are and create an AUP (acceptable use policy) around the risks.

      Get the users to sign the AUP.

      put controls around the AUP - eg make sure the users can't install their own software and do this for then with LanDesk or similar. No use of IE, Firewall only etc etc..

    1. Re:Policy and control by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

      If I had points, I'd mod you up.

      Too frequently, policies are overlooked as a solution to security concerns. The old adage about being unable to apply a technical solution to a social problem fits like a glove.

      Draft a policy about laptop use, run it by whatever department heads or HR people you need, and mandate that anyone using a company laptop read and sign it.

      Hopefully just the act of having read this will hammer home the point that these are not personal property, and for those remaining cases of abuse, you have your own ass covered by their signature on the dotted line.

      Deep Freeze, anti-virus software, firewalls, VPNs, and Spybot are only half the solution. The other half lies outside the realm of technology altogether.

      Good policies + good enforcement = huge step toward good security.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
  13. Where's the Ha Ha Guy when you need him by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    This has got to be the stupidest suggestion yet: make it illegal to get a virus, and nobody will get a virus!

    This AUP will crumble when someone wants to see something in Flash, or use a Pen Drive, or plug into their friend's printer, or ... well, do anything.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Where's the Ha Ha Guy when you need him by karnal · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never worked in a situation to where a user has taken advantage of the situation time and time again, and there's no real AUP in place to CYA.

      AUPs, SLAs etc are all needed in order to be able to say "I told you so", albeit in more polite words. The only way you will cover your butt is to have it signed, in writing. Heresay doesn't count.

      --
      Karnal
    2. Re:Where's the Ha Ha Guy when you need him by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      The real point, however, is that it doesn't actually stop the problem. Who gives a shit if you can pin the blame on someone when a virus is rampaging around your network?

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    3. Re:Where's the Ha Ha Guy when you need him by martin · · Score: 1

      If the AUP is written correctly, getting "around it" is a dicisplinary offence...

  14. VPN, policies, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Posting as AC to protect my job, however our method is quite extensive, and the high-level details are worth sharing for others to learn from.

    My company's (a large online e-tailer and book seller) approach involves several methods to protect remote machines and limit access.

    For remote access, a customized platform agnostic VPN device (running an embedded linux) piggy-back's onto the laptop. The device is powered by the laptop's USB port, and acts as a firewall in addition to a VPN gateway. The device can connect to the internet either via it's built-in compact-flash wireless card (supports WEP or open wireless) or an ethernet connection. When the tunnel is down, the laptop is still well protected by said firewall. When the tunnel is up, all traffic is routed through the VPN tunnel, and subject to corporate firewall rules. The VPN device is tied to the laptop's MAC address, and will not work with any other machine unless reprovisioned by an admin with appropriate rights. The user must authenticate on the device (which updates credentials each time it connects) before access is granted internally, and only the provisioned user has access to login to the device. Three failed login attempts will delete the data on the device, rendering it useless to any theif, and requiring it to be reimaged by corporate IT. The only means of accessing corporate data from "the outside" is via this device or a direct dial-up. There is zero access to internal systems without either of these methods (not even webmail). Dial-up numbers cannot be modified by the user which prevents them from connecting to any random ISP.

    I don't know if either connection is dropped into a DMZ for further protection, however the local VPN device does packet filter certain types of packets on the way out for extra measure.

    On the software side, the machines (when running Windows of some sort) run an antivirus and policy enforcement suite which is maintained by a corporate server. Policies enforce encrpytion of the user's mydocs directory should the laptop be otherwise compromised. Policies also restrict the user from installing software that isn't deployed via SMS. Additionally, anti-spyware software is installed on the machine to allow IT to remove threats. Because users must connect to the corporate network to do most job functions, these tools remain fairly up-to-date.

    To protect the laptop, user passwords are changed regularly and a strong password requirement is enforced in addition to a fairly long password history retention to prevent reuse. Usernames are not retained in the login screen. Laptop screens are forced to lock after a short amount of time to prevent unattended access.

    For browsing, users are permitted either IE or Firefox, however most users prefer the latter :-) Email can be accessed via web, Outlook/Evolution (ick) or Thunderbird via IMAP.

    I'm not sure on the size of your company, but if your budget allows, this seems to be highly secure and admitedly, well thought out means of enforcing security and protecting networks.

    1. Re:VPN, policies, etc. by UrQUan3 · · Score: 1

      I feel I need to respond to the parent and several of the other mostly absurd policies presented here. As a user on the short end of the stick, I feel a few results need to be pointed out.

      First, let me start with the good. A forced VPN is an excellent idea for laptops. Their wireless connectivity will often be used in airports or other places where open wireless is the only option. Having an encrypted transmission going through the corporate firewall can only be a good thing.

      Now the worst: "Policies also restrict the user from installing software that isn't deployed via SMS." If you intend to use this at all, you will have to heavily tailor the policies for different users. Developers will need one, or often multiple compilers installed, as well as tools for every piece of the development process like Java runtimes and Cygwin or Rendermonkey and model loaders depending on their job at the time. Content creators may need to add arbitrary plug-ins for software that the company may only own one or two copies of. Modelers may need Pro-E on one machine and Maya on another. Look at who your users are and consider what they need before forming a network policy.

      A company exists to get a job done in order to make money, not to have perfectly secure useless little clone computers.

    2. Re:VPN, policies, etc. by DutchSter · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Now the worst: "Policies also restrict the user from installing software that isn't deployed via SMS." If you intend to use this at all, you will have to heavily tailor the policies for different users. Developers will need one, or often multiple compilers installed, as well as tools for every piece of the development process like Java runtimes and Cygwin or Rendermonkey and model loaders depending on their job at the time. Content creators may need to add arbitrary plug-ins for software that the company may only own one or two copies of. Modelers may need Pro-E on one machine and Maya on another. Look at who your users are and consider what they need before forming a network policy.

      Where I work, we've found it helpful to have multiple domains with different policies. All the developers have access to the MAINDEV domain, and they have administrative rights to those workstations. There's also a MAINTEST domain where devlopers have mid-level access, and then MAINPROD which is the corporate network - on this, developers are just like anyone else, limited rights. Each of the domains are on their own physical subnets with firewalls between them. For example, a developer can TS into his MAINDEV workstation from his MAINPROD workstation, but not transfer files. In fact, we keep all the development machines physically under lock and key as part of the server farm and require TS/Raritan for any type of console access. When push comes to shove, there's a web interface for rebuilding DEV and TEST workstations.


      As for apps required on the main corporate domain, there's a small group of people who are full-time dedicated to scripting apps and their related plug ins. Access to the apps is controlled strictly by AD groups, which is good because it then forces the install script to run as opposed to the user configuring as they see fit. At the same time, it also gives us license compliance. Regular workstation scans are run at random intervals to compare the applications that each workstation reports as installed to the active directory groups that the user is a member of. Any difference is sent to an administrator who will remotely access the workstation and assess the situation. If it turns out there is unauthorized software, the user is booted immediately from the machine and their user ID is locked out until they call the help desk. At that point, there's a procedure to go through where someone has to come out and reimage your machine, no questions asked.


      As to the idea of employees rebuilding their machines, any machine that attempts to connect to a network segment is checked to see if it is a member of the domain it is trying to get an IP address on. If the answer is NO, it is investigated. Hooking an unauthorized PC to any network segment is an immediate termination situation - I've seen it enforced many times, and on people who are "too important" to be bothered by such policy drivel.


      Getting the OK for this policy was easy - the costs of unauthorized software, from license compliance costs, and the potential of employee/company downtime was presented to the Board of Directors and they directed the CEO to adopt the policy, in full. It also worked well that the policy was sold at about the time that SOX was coming in as the latest buzzword, so it really was an easy sell.

    3. Re:VPN, policies, etc. by Dogers · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to know what software you use to perform all this.. Any chance of telling? :)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    4. Re:VPN, policies, etc. by DutchSter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd be interested to know what software you use to perform all this.. Any chance of telling? :)

      Nothing fancy actually - it's pretty much all Active Directory, SMS, and Perl scripting. Some strategically placed network probes on the DHCP server allow us to listen for incoming DHCP requests, and the response with the IP address allocated. A filter with an event handling logic runs on the probe which then calls a Perl script to runs an NBTSTAT against the computer to see what it's a member of and does an LDAP lookup to see that the workstation name is in one of the offcial AD OUs. The script has the ability to manage the switch and shutdown ports, send emails, etc.

      I'm not entirely sure of how exactly it's all accomplished since that's a different area of my department, but I know the 10,000 foot view. I do not know what Network filtering software they're using for the sniffer probe. Really, the trick is effective use of Group Policy, and the grunts to physically back it up (that is, enforcing the policy outside the computer world - the guys who make visits to you and your manager for violators, etc). As to the different physical segments for the network, that's as simple as having the electricians run extra Cat5 to a different patch panel in a different room and then connecting the different segments via Stonegate firewalls.

    5. Re:VPN, policies, etc. by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Must be a linux DHCP server I guess? Dont think Windows DHCP is that smart :/

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    6. Re:VPN, policies, etc. by DutchSter · · Score: 1

      Must be a linux DHCP server I guess? Dont think Windows DHCP is that smart :/

      Answer:
      Yes, but irrelevant :). There's a network probe on the wire between the switch and the DHCP servers, all it does is watch the requests and responses go by. The DHCP server itself is none the wiser. All the logic happens on the probe.

    7. Re:VPN, policies, etc. by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I getcha :)

      That's actually quite devious! I'll have to remember that..

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  15. There's a simple solution... by wolf31o2 · · Score: 1

    Lock the sons of a bitches down hard. Don't allow the laptop user to install software. Don't allow them to run as an administrator account. Use policies to allow them to perform any administrative tasks that they might need, such as being able to change their IP address. Use a corporate-controlled firewall, preferably using a firewall that allows you to set a global policy and force it enabled. This is a host-based firewall, besides the actual corporate one to the Internet. Turn off all unecessary services. Enable anti-virus and don't allow users to disable it.

    The real problem with laptops is that most IT departments treat them differently than they would a desktop. Don't. Don't give your laptop users administrative access, no matter how much they complain. It is your job to keep the machine in a usable state, no matter what they do to it, so don't allow them to do things that you know will break it.

    1. Re:There's a simple solution... by wolf31o2 · · Score: 1

      I knew I forgot something above.

      Don't let your laptop machines on the same network as your desktops. Keep them on their own little quarantined network. In fact, the more you can quarantine each machine from each other, the better off you're going to be if something does get onto one of these laptops. The simplest thing to remember is that you control the laptop and need to lock it down as much as humanly possibly, but at the same time, the laptop is the front-line soldier on the battlezone of the Internet, so proper quarantine procedures should always be followed. If you design your network to assume that any and all laptops that enter it could be infected with anything, it lends to a more secure environment.

    2. Re:There's a simple solution... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The real problem with laptops is that most IT departments treat them differently than they would a desktop. Don't. Don't give your laptop users administrative access, no matter how much they complain. It is your job to keep the machine in a usable state, no matter what they do to it, so don't allow them to do things that you know will break it.

      Well, a lot of corporations don't differentiate. When replacement time comes around, we can get either a desktop or a laptop. Most people have latops.

      There's so much you can't do on a Windows machine without Administrative access as to make it useless to own one.

      No, your sole job is not to keep the machine stable and locked down. Your bloody job is to provide support for the infrastructure and not be Mordac the Preventer in IT.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:There's a simple solution... by wolf31o2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you misunderstood that I said that specific permissions be granted via policy, rather than blanket administration rights. Besides, I've been doing this for a long time now, and locked down machines tend to work better, have less problems, and users tend to be happier. The ones that get upset are the "Joe Admins" out there that think because they can admin their home box with their pirated copy of Windows XP, that they know anything about professional corporate environments. Remember that you don't own your work machine. It belongs to your work. It is their job to make sure that you can do your job on the machine and really nothing else.

      I don't work in IT anymore, but at the last company where I worked, we kept a very tight ship. We got none of the new viruses or worms, when everyone I knew was running around panicking, I was going home on time and spending time with my girlfriend. Our users were also quite happy, as they rarely, if ever, had to call the help desk, and when they did, it was almost always a genuine problem that needed to be addressed, rather than an issue of viruses/spyware/malware. Taking the time to actually plan and design your network and policies can go a long way to prevention, without having to be draconian on the machines themselves. Unfortunately, this is missed in most companies.

      Where I currently work, the IT department is completely inept. Problems don't get resolved for weeks and the network is generally a bunch of mayhem. Nothing is properly planned, everything is thrown together at the last minute. There's no design on the network, and nothing internal to stop any kind of malware, other than anti-virus software on each machine, which is only updated weekly. Laptops are given free reign on and off the network, and all laptop users are local administrators just so they can do things like change their network settings, which is all they really need to do that requires elevated priviledges.

      You seem to think I advocate being controlling over what the users do with their machines on a fine-grained level. I have much better things to do than be big brother, so rather than watch over the users like a hawk, I'd rather design the network from the beginning to be easily maintainable and designed with security in mind from the beginning. This reduces the support calls, and in the end, makes my job easier and the users happier. Who cares if you have 100% control over your work machine if you can't use it because the latest virus or worm knocked it out. Most people just want a work machine to be reliable so that they can do their job without being inconvenienced with it breaking.

  16. Updates + AV + Firewall by antdude · · Score: 1

    At my workplace, all of these are enforced. The rules are so strict that you can be fired if you violate these rules. Each laptop comes with IT downloader that IT can push updates. Also, there is a list of banned software and hardware.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  17. absolute standardization by eagl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Require absolute standardization. Create a custom installation image similiar to the standard desktop installation including all utilities and software licenses required for the job. Do not give the users administrator rights to anything. Require them to hook the laptop up to the network every week or so to receive updates, patches, and submit to a system scan for unauthorized software and files.

    If the system is determined to not meet company standards, give the employee a day to remove personal and work files, and then take the computer back to your IT cave, scrub the hard drive, and re-install the standard image from scratch before giving it back to the employee.

    If the company has purchased the laptop, it must be very very clear that the laptop, and everything on it, belongs to the company, period. Policies like this will help keep "innocent" employees from accidentally bringing back something hazardous to the company network, and any employee savvy enough to work around the restrictions should also have the skillz to avoid undetected malware.

    And if you have trouble employees who keep getting caught with unauthorized files, software, or who keep bringing back malware infested machines, your security policy and the measures required to circumvent the policies ought to be enough ammunition to support firing them for cause. Or at least confiscating their computer, locking their account, and demoting them to a job that doesn't require the use of a computer. Like janitor or something.

    Make it very clear that as their job depends on them having access to a computer, and their access to a computer absolutely depends on them taking care of it and following company policy, if they do something to cause their network and computer privledges to be revoked then they will either be moved to a less technical job or released.

    My company works in a very similiar fashion, except that we have the threat of jail time thrown in just for flavor. Guess what... Nobody f**ks with the IT guys and the very very few who violate policy and get caught become well publicized examples of how to ruin you life. Is installing that intardnet solitare game, or peeking at the porn site worth your job? How about worth half your salary for 3 months and a month in jail before you get fired? Well, most companies don't need to go that far, but the general idea that messing with the IT resources is dangerous to company survival is something that nobody will seriously consider unless the both the policies AND actions taken to enforce those policies are black and white. No questions askes, fail to bring in your laptop for a weekly update/scan and you lose compter network privledges until you comply. Fail to comply 3 times or get caught violating the rules 3 times, and lose privledges until reinstated by the appropriate company VP, board member, co-owner, whatever.

    If you let people take advantage of the IT department, EVERYONE will bypass the rules. Sure, most slashdot readers could do that without causing harm and many could do it without any real risk of getting caught, but chances are that some of the policy breakers will be relatively incompetent and one single person can bring down the entire company, if the security compliance policies are not clearly defined and rigorously enforced, with real penalties for violations and repeat violators.

    I've been on both ends of the corporate IT stick... Been beaten for sidestepping policy, and done the beating later on when it was my turn to enforce policy. There can't be any question in anyone's mind that the policies simply can't be broken without consequences, no exceptions.

    Go ahead and do it differently, if you don't mind seeing your company on "CNN Money" next week as being the latest gropu who just let some intruder walk away with your customer database or all your company's proprietary info. Yea, that happened to my company too, with some stuff that had been outsouced. Sucks to know that access to my entire personal financial records have been stolen not once, not twice, but three times due to incompetent IT departments my company has outsourced to.

    1. Re:absolute standardization by anomaly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great in theory, lousy in practice. For what it's worth, I worked for years as a part of the desktop management team for a Fortune 500 company. I switched jobs about a year ago. On my corporate-issued laptop, I have the full suite of applications 'certified' to work on the reference build of XP.

      I just checked and found that as a part of DOING MY JOB, I need 50 - count them - 50 utilities that are not provided, certified, or approved to go on my laptop. I'm not a developer, but I am a tech lead for implementation of a COTS product deployed on a J2EE app server. Those 50 utilities include:
      Cygwin, jEdit, filezilla, ultravnc, SP2 & a RAM defragger (b/c my laptop won't hibernate without it) ldap tools, putty, gaim, pdf utilities, an HTML editor, and many others. Pretty much none of these would be 'corporate approved' and without them, my job would be MUCH harder.

      I can edit config files in notepad, which *is* corporate certified. It it the most efficient tool? No way! Editing in jEdit is much richer and faster - syntax highlighting for perl, xml, shell scripts, batch files, etc.

      This also does not address the issue with the fact that without local admin I'd be unable to install print drivers for my network-attached printer at home. I also would be unable to connect to my wireless LAN at home, because I would not be able to configure the WEP settings. Do I do real work at home? Yup.

      Here's my point: I'm not using my laptop as a personal computer. My kids never touch dad's work laptop, and my personal software is installed on my personal PCs. Without local admin, my job would be MUCH harder. Is it expensive for our company to let me have a unique config? Probably. How expensive would it be to not let me have the tools I need to do my job?

      What makes sense? In my view, you're penny wise and pound foolish to prevent me from installing the tools I need.

      just my .02

      Respectfully,
      Anomaly

      --
      But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    2. Re:absolute standardization by arkanes · · Score: 1
      This is the real problem, in my opinion. I've never worked at a company where they had both the will and the ability to totally lock down the machines, AND the will and ability to be quickly responsive to installation and authorization requests. This gets especially bad when IT people get to make policy instead of being responsible for implementing it.

      It can take *6 months* to get approval to install a no-cost, industry standard application (Eclipse, for example). Too many IT departments get into this us & them attitude, and want to lock down users so they can't waste anyones time. Anyone with a complaint is obviously a whiner or a wannabe hacker, so push anything you have to do for them off as much as possible. If you need to lock down my PC so that it remains stable and working, then *you* need to provide the kind of service that I could do for myself. Which means not waiting 24 hours to install an approved application, or 6 months to get one approved. And especially not rebooting peoples PCs in the middle of the day while they're trying to work.

    3. Re:absolute standardization by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Good luck getting this kind of policy enforced with the sales drones. They are an entirely different breed, and I guarantee that if a sales guy can't get to texanholdmpokr.com, it will be your fault.

      He just has to say, "I cant get to the internet and make my deals/leads", and your policy will become the problem. The boss hears, "IT is keeping me from doing my job".

      This problem goes much deeper than some simple policy changes.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  18. Outlook PST Files by theinfobox · · Score: 1

    I work for a gov. agency that has a lot of laptop users. We also use Exchange/Outlook and have limited mailbox sizes to 150MB. The biggest problem that we have is that users want to store their Archive PST files on their laptop and then scream at us when their HD dies and they lose their old emails. It's a no win situation for us.. Management won't authorize more Exchange server space; if we force them to store their PST on a file server, they complain; if they lose a PST on a bad laptop HD they complain.

    I'm thinking of implementing some type of VBS login script that will copy the PST to a file server. The problem with that is that PSTs can be big and it might take awhile to do the copy. I have to ensure it won't run when the user is on dialup or VPN. In addition, even if they are on the LAN, it will mean they can't use Outlook while it is copying.

    Any suggestions!?!?!?

    1. Re:Outlook PST Files by great+om · · Score: 1

      i have a perl script that i wrote that copies psts to network storage, is hacky, but it works

      --
      ------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
    2. Re:Outlook PST Files by cl_everett · · Score: 1

      Look into BackupPC. It's pretty god for backing up laptops.

    3. Re:Outlook PST Files by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      The biggest problem that we have is that users want to store their Archive PST files on their laptop and then scream at us when their HD dies and they lose their old emails. It's a no win situation for us.. Management won't authorize more Exchange server space; if we force them to store their PST on a file server, they complain; if they lose a PST on a bad laptop HD they complain.

      [...]

      Any suggestions!?!?!?

      Folder Redirection (put them in My Documents and redirect it) or a dedicated share that's mapped with "offline files". That way they still have them on the local machine for offline access, but they're also stored on the server for security.

      However, I believe you need to tweak a registry setting (or something similar) so offline folders and/or folder redirection will sync .PST files.

    4. Re:Outlook PST Files by tf23 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you use roaming profiles?

      Then put the .pst in the user's homedir, and set outlook to use it.

    5. Re:Outlook PST Files by rduke15 · · Score: 1

      The solution would be simple if users weren't so addicted to Outlook.

      I replaced Exchange with Postfix and Courier IMAP, and I'm a happy mail admin since.

      For the client side, I always hated Outlook, so I installed Thunderbird on all machines.

      Unfortunately, out of a dozen users, only one seems to prefer Thunderbird. The others insist on using Outlook 2003, despite all the problems they regularly have with it. For example, Outlook doesn't start, complaining that the server is not accessible or something. They call me, and to make sure the server actually is accessible to them, I have them start TB which works immediately. Rebooting/restarting Outlook several times usually fixes it. But they still prefer Outlook.

      Anyway, the only user who has no trouble is the Thunderbird user, and all his mails are automatically backed up every night, and since they are in text format with one file per mail, he cannot loose everything if a single file gets corrupted.

      I never could get a clear explanation on what it is they dislike in Thunderbird, or what it is in the email part of Outlook that is so great for them. Maybe they just dislike the TB icons? I do find they look childish, but I don't choose and email client solely on the esthetics of the icons...

      Well, I suppose this doesn't help you at all with your specific problem if your tied to Exchange...

  19. Offtopic, but thread related. by karnal · · Score: 1

    The problem with that is that PSTs can be big and it might take awhile to do the copy. I have to ensure it won't run when the user is on dialup or VPN.

    This will just require you checking to see what subnet the laptop is currently on before copying. That's what my current systems do - it won't copy the files unless you are in the "office network" environment, based on the subnet.

    --
    Karnal
  20. threat of jail time by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Well if it's anything other than a threat please tell me how you managed it?

    SFAIK You cannot got to jail for a civil offense and and breach of contract is a civil offense, unless it's the government top secret part of the contract you breach.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:threat of jail time by eagl · · Score: 1

      Certain ummm "organizations" serve up jail time for a wide variety of misbehavior. And even in the general corporate world, many acts can get you jail time. I guarantee if a microsoft employee walked out with their internal development library and customer database, and then got caught, they'd go to jail. Heck, they're jailing kids who break into corporate networks and play around, and if it comes to prosecution of a crime, the punishment isn't going to be all that different if they're doing it from inside the company instead of from outside.

      In some places, the line between "mistake" and "crime" is pretty well defined and stepping to the "crime" side of the line may at the very least result in a short period of confinement, reduction in pay, and firing.

      Most readers already know what kind of company I'm talking about...

    2. Re:threat of jail time by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Taking company secrets is thief, which is a criminal offense, so you could persue the tieft with the possibility of jail time for the thief.
      Generally missuse of a laptop (installing kazaa, browsing porn, screwing up all the settings etc...) would only be a breach of contract which is a civil offense.

      Maybe you have different laws in the states from the UK/EU (laws where a civil offense results in jail time), but the fact that the civil trial of OJ Simpson for murder resulted in financial compensation and not jail time suggests that you don't.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:threat of jail time by eagl · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll be blunt.

      Military. Willfully breaking almost ANY rule, no matter how small, carries the potential punishment of confinement and/or real jail time, before getting fired.

    4. Re:threat of jail time by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Well, that's generally treason or something along those lines, not something slapped into anyold contract to prevent people installing kazaa on their laptops like the original post suggested.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  21. Re:"if the company has purchased...." by museumpeace · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would suggest to the poster that ONLY company issued machines be allowed to ever connect to the company systems, in or outside the perimeter. The "locked down" bare bones configuration are standard practice with better defense contractors and large financial companies, especially brokerage firms...I know this from experience. SecurId two part logins through VPN that basically only let you access your desk top system and only as your employee identity tend limit unauthorized access. And be very careful with wireless. If it is tolerated at all, be darn sure users don't ever get a chance to work without encryption turned on.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  22. Odd. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    I have never had a laptop at the IT places I worked.

  23. How about an escalating security policy? by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

    First, if you want control of the laptops, be sure to set a bios password and disable booting from devices other than the hard disk. This will keep most people from installing their own operating system.

    Second, if a machine gets really fucked up, you'll want to be able to fix it quickly. I suggest using disk images. You'll need to partition the disk drive so that you can re-image without wiping out the user's files. Remember that with NTFS, you can mount a partition in any empty folder. You know what to do with that Documents and Settings folder.

    Third, how about giving everyone a shot at freedom?

    At first, let the users have admin rights. Enforce only basic security precautions. Keep a log of problems with each employee's machine. But if Bob from accounting is doing a lot of Bad Things, escalate the security policy on his machine. Step one would probably be revoking administrator acess. If Bob keeps finding ways to screw things up, use your exclusive admin access to set up a more restrictive security policy. If Bob still finds ways to screw things up, you could use the Final Solution: DeepFreeze.

    This is where the log would be very important. When Bob's boss comes to bitch about Bob "not being able to do his job", you can whip it out and show him that you've had twice as many problems with Bob's laptop than anyone else's. You'd also need to have an explicit AUP.

    De-escalating policy if an employee shows signs of being more responsible would also be a good idea, and it would give them a reason to start caring about what they run on their machine.

    Disclaimer: IANA sysadmin. I haven't tested this policy. It just sounded like a good compromise to me.

    --
    "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
  24. Repeat after me... by Spoing · · Score: 1
    ...lack of physical security means lack of assurance of any security.

    If you don't control the laptops, don't trust them to behave. Design your network and servers -- the things you can control -- with the idea that they can be 'attacked' from anywhere; Internet or intranet.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  25. No argument by mr_tap · · Score: 1

    Apparently no-one had an argument with this point :)

    1. Re:No argument by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      There was one -1 overrated so at least one person was too ashamed to speak up about it.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
  26. Wow... by vwjeff · · Score: 1

    Now I have 4 desktops under my desk :)

    Also known in my state (Wisconsin) as a personal space heater.

  27. Is this astroturfing??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the question some form of backhanded astroturfing or what?

    The question seems to be asking for what Microsoft calls Network Access Protection and Cisco calls Clean Access or Network access Control(NAC).

    These technologies supposedly prevent network access unless the system meets the network's policy requirements. These requirements include user/system authorization, anti-virus, firewall, software, and many other criteria.

    If the question is legitimate, it sounds like you would like a Cisco network with Windows Server 2003 and XP laptops. Slashdot heresy!!

    P.S. Prepare to write VERY LARGE checks!

  28. Here's How by Ed+Almos · · Score: 1

    Notebooks logon via a seperate server, they have their own IP address range whenever on the network and their own DHCP server. The link between the notebook servers and the rest of the network is firewalled.

    Ed Almos
    Budapest, Hungary

    --
    The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
  29. Too many BOFHs by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    All these pathetic posts about locking down the (l)users make me want to hurl. You are trying to use technical means to solve a social problem, and IT WILL NOT WORK. And by the way, who the hell are you, to tell me what I do or don't need to use my computer for. Get over yourselves, you BOFH wannabes.

    Your job is to provide me with the IT tools I need to do my job. Have all the policies you want, but the second those policies keep me from doing my job, they have to give way.

    How about this? You give me admin access to my laptop so that the 15 year old proprietary crapola DOS based compilers and config software that I NEED TO DO MY DAMN JOB will run. In return I promise to take reasonable steps to keep my laptop spyware and virus free. I promise to keep it physically secure, and not let my kids use it.

    If you lock down systems hard enough to keep Jane the receptionist from installing the happy kitten screensaver spyware, you will also keep Bob the engineer from downloading and installing the monitor software for the milling machine that just quit and has your main production line down.

    Your job has conflicting requirements. Boo hoo, deal with it.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Too many BOFHs by freebsdboy · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree partially- Yes - users need/must have the right mix of software and hardware to do their jobs. Their computer is a business tool. One privledge model for an entire organization doesn't work. Systems need to be locked down - for security reasons- an default install with admin prives reading email, accessing the web is asking for trouble. Protect the users from them selfs. Users are NOT sysadmins- users are paid to do their job, admins are paid to do their job. Users responsibility is to know how to use the business tool(laptop/desktp/pda etc) report problems, and needs requests. Admins are responsible to care for the business equipment and respond to users needs and requess. Admins manage the business equipment so that users don't waste time running windows update, installing ie when they could be more productive doing their real job. "worker productive time is down to some 60% already". this model has worked very well for me. My users are happy that their system is managed for them(but ony when its really working for them). They all realize that what the support model provides them, stable, virus free, business tools that work when they need them, and can count on them! Its the builing of a new culture, small steps over time. I do believe that this is a type of social problem. 1) The lines between work computer and my personal use of my work computer keeps changing and getting more gray. First it ok son, you can use daddys laptop to access im for a minute. Next its a few websites- now lets just use works computer and not get a new home system. Dad shares his password with the fam so he's not bothered with naping and son wants to i friends. 2) The work owe's me -- you know this story.. Sounds like the old company car issues. Company rules were that you are the driver. milage you turn in, you pay for your extra. you wouldn't hink of letting your son drie the company car with his friends. What is the laptop not seen the same ?

  30. Simple solution by Triple+Click · · Score: 1

    Bolt the laptops to the desks.

  31. An easy solution... by JordanL · · Score: 1

    I work in my jobs IT Dept... and I use a laptop... my solution? I asked them for an Apple laptop. Never have to fuss about my wireless card, never have worries about viruses, never have to fret about updating... best thing that IT ever did for me.