Slashdot Mirror


The Enemy Within the Firewall

Mel Tom writes to tell us The Age is reporting that many businesses are now considering employees a much bigger threat to security than most external threats. From the article: "With email and instant messaging proving increasingly popular and devices such as laptop computers, mobile phones and USB storage devices more commonplace in the office, the opportunities for workplace crime are growing."

36 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. One thing is sure by LunaticTippy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If companies treat their employees like criminals, they are likely to get what they expect.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
    1. Re:One thing is sure by ditoa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Treating your employees like criminals and restricting access to data that they have no business in accessing are very different things. Remember you own nothing at your work, it all belongs to the company. Restricting access to things you do not own is not treating you like a criminal.

    2. Re:One thing is sure by tpgp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If companies treat their employees like criminals, they are likely to get what they expect.

      While I can certainly understand why you say that, the article's headline 'the enemy within the firewall' was a bit of a troll.

      More like 'the hapless idiot within the firewall' because the article is more about external attacker using employees's as a vector rather then the employees themselves being the attacker.

      And really - when I say 'the hapless idiot' I'm being far too harsh - after all, it only takes inserting a music CD to potentially install a rootkit on a company's (windows) PC.

      --
      My pics.
    3. Re:One thing is sure by LunaticTippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I realize there are risks, and agree that appropriate security needs to be in place.

      You're right that I was responding to the tone of the article and headline.

      I've worked for companies that think of employees as liabilities they reluctantly put up with because there isn't another option. It comes through loud and clear in their policies. Security measures that add no security but are humiliating, stark double standards for management and staff, headlines about corporate malfeasance and record-breaking bonuses, etc.

      I think treating employees like family is a better approach. Give them some trust, but have policies in place. My mother, for example, has a computer with very strict security policies that she can't change. That is appropriate, and she has thanked me for it. Same approach will work for employees.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    4. Re:One thing is sure by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Restricting access to things you do not own is not treating you like a criminal.

      True, but taking my fingerprints and putting them on file at the FBI within the first hour of a new job is criminal treatment. After all the SEC, FBI, and other background checks you still get put on file at the FBI when taking a job at most brokerage firms (at least here in NYC).

      It's beyond technical. At many companies you're treated as if they need to always look over your shoulder. Those cameras aren't there for your benefit. They're there to catch you if you do anything wrong.

    5. Re:One thing is sure by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Where do things like arbitrary background, credit & criminal checks fit in, I wonder.

      At my last 3 jobs (Over 4 years), it was required to take these things. Along with the occasional piss-in-the-cup drug test. At many workplaces, companies are running background checks on existing employees. The tests are a "requirement of your continued employment here at the company".

      Does this make people feel like a criminal?

    6. Re:One thing is sure by Metzli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depending on where you are and what you do, that's the norm. I once worked at a bank's data center and there were cameras all over the place. They do background checks before you join, etc. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. I would feel better knowing that the place that has my money is that careful.

      --
      "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
    7. Re:One thing is sure by slapout · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's funny. At one job I had, it wasn't allowed to defragment my own hard drive. Yet I had delete access to every table in the production database. Strange.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  2. And this is new? by Trevahaha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this covered in Security 101 -- most instances of stealing information, destroying data, etc. occurs from the inside (or ex-employees).

    1. Re:And this is new? by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is new is that apparently some companies are actually starting to get it.

      You don't have to treat your employees like criminals in order to reduce the threat that an insider may pose. You just have to take rational approaches to tighten access.

  3. This Has Been Why... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been why email attachments are regularly stripped and IM is forbidden here. Still, we get stuff because people bring it in on CDs, infected PDA's in dock, etc.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:This Has Been Why... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If you trust your employees, you might find a lot less security breaches. Many breaches are only due to an employee with an axe to grind.

      That's a bit naive. Most of our employees are devious little buggers. As soon as no-one is looking they're sending amusing flash/avi/mpeg between themselves, forwarding jokes someone outside sent to their gmail account (and they've cut-n-pasted them into work mail), etc.

      What it really comes down to is establishing a policy and what sanction will be forthcoming on violations. I knew one company that had zero tolerance. A couple sackings and everyone left was quite clear on proper behaviour.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Then the ONLY real solution is... by 3D+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    to get rid of all the employees.

    Seriously, how can anyone get any work done with all this security risks running around?

  5. Not much new here by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The disguntled employee has always been the biggest security threat to any company. The only new thing today is how much easier it is to disrupt security and how often security is breached accidentally. I still see idiots send out passwords in plain text e-mails all the time. Educating employees is just as important as not disenfranchising them and properly securing networks.

  6. Here's Some News by mordors9 · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Ms Warwar believes that the rise in internal security attacks has come about because outside criminal gangs realise that recruiting or tricking employees to hand over insider knowledge is less expensive and traceable than other forms of cybercrime."

    Gee someone ought to come up with a name for this... let's see, we can call it "Social Engineering". Hopefully no bad guys will read about this and start using it now....

  7. The enemy within the gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am shrugging at this, because it seems fairly obvious to me. After all, haven't all the e-mail worms of the past decade gone through corporate firewalls because some guy in the office just opened an e-mail he though had some interesting photos in it? Or some guy happens to leave his blackberry with hundreds of sensitive emails on it on a subway train or in Starbucks?

  8. crime opportunities by pretygrrl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for a consulting firm that provides all types of HR services. We get data on client personnel that includes EVERYTHING: SSN's, addresses, spouse info, dates of birth, EVERYTHING
    The article mentions scarce spending on addressing internal security threats: im looking around my office, and there is just nothing you can do! Even if you completely lock down desktops (the latest image was set up as to disable all HW and SW installs), and I personally had an admin pw within days!), there is still email. And loaner laptops.
    I hear that this type of complete personal information fetches $10 per record amongst certain unscrupulous Brooklyn programmers.
    Come think of it... where DID i put all my floppies?

    --
    Contemplate the marvel that is existence, and rejoice that you are able to do so.
  9. Internal security is a double-edged sword. by robyannetta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you're a company that respects its employees, rewards them appropriately and values them, do you think internal threats are going to be such a large issue compared to the faceless megaopolies that most American companies have mutated into?

    --
    - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
  10. Who is the enemy? by Y-Crate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While businesses should take reasonable precautions to secure their networks, data and physical assets, I've found that the employer/employee relationship is beginning to evolve into one of suspicion and severe distrust that is fostering resentment, anger and inhibiting productivity. No one wants to work anywhere they are treated as being one step removed from a hardened criminal from the moment they walk in the door on their first day. There is a fine line between taking sensible precautions to prevent opportunistic breaches of security, and indulging in paranoia and broadcasting an implicit belief through actions and words that everyone there is just waiting for the right moment to take the entire company for all they're worth.

    Employees are no longer being thought of as possible risks, but confirmed dangers that must be actively confronted every step of the way. Proactive security measures enacted in a passive way that does not interfere with day to day work in an unreasonable fashion, or impact the work environment in a disproportionate manner are giving way to managers that are far more focused on what their employees are deliberately doing wrong, than on the actual work at hand.

    By creating this atmosphere of hostility and distrust which cannot be overcome by proving oneself through hard work and carrying out duties in a thoughtful, honest way, managers are encouraging high-turnover, poor communication between workers, poor attitudes towards work and customers, and an atmosphere of little or no respect for the organization which anyone can tell you is the first step towards encouraging workplace crime.

    1. Re:Who is the enemy? by aussersterne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a fine line between taking sensible precautions to prevent opportunistic breaches of security, and indulging in paranoia and broadcasting an implicit belief through actions and words that everyone there is just waiting for the right moment to take the entire company for all they're worth.

      The problem is that this is absolutely true in western society. Everyone is waiting to take everyone for all they're worth. Witness patent battles, intellectual property and copyright battles, lawsuits, hostile takeovers, noncompete agreements and violations of noncompete agreements, "new enterpreneurship" in which you work to gain expertise, then leave the company and start your own doing the same things, corporate cutbacks in benefits and resorting to temp workers and outsourcing... From my view, virtually every practice in the free market, even those that are applauded, are of marginal ethics and morality at best. The basic premise of taking as much wealth as possible from others because you are clever enough to win it at their expense makes the entire pile of rubbish stink.

      Everyone is in this for his or herself, and the offensively rich can routinely be heard to say to the poor labor force: "You should have seized the opportunity like I did," or "it's not my fault if you don't know how to build wealth."

      Everything is fair game--it's only illegal if someone richer than you or less clever than you is able to stop you from getting away with it. So companies should be paranoid, because all of their employees would steal everything not nailed down if they could get ahold of it, and employees should be paranoid, because companies would press employees bodies and minds into perpetual, dehumanizing forced labor if they could.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    2. Re:Who is the enemy? by HalfStarted · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A common trend I am seeing in these threads is the equating of "IT infrastructure policies to limit employee access" == "Treating employees like criminals".

      Bank employees (at least the ones I know and talk to) definitely do not feel that they are treated like criminals, but most of them are not allowed into the vault at any time they like for any reason they would like. Similarly I would consider it a reasonable policy to specify IT polices to limit access to databases that contained confidential data.

      Access policies are just one example of a reasonable IT policy for protecting corporate data and infrastructure. Really most acceptable use policies are also reasonable when you get down to it as well.

      As recent as the 2005 CSI/FBI Computer Crime and Security Survey roughly 50% of all network intrusion/unauthorized use was from inside jobs. This can have a substantial material impact on a company, it is only reasonable that they take steps to minimize this as well. Reasonable policies to protect corporate assets are not the same as treating you like a criminal, hence the word reasonable. From reading the article I do not see anyone saying that extreme steps should be taken either, just that this is an area that should not be ignored and deserves some thought.

      Really the argument that IT policies intended to limit access or specify accepted use for equipment is tantamount to treating you like a criminal is just an overreaction by technologically sophisticated people that resent the idea of being told that they can't do anything they want.

      --


      Have you thought for yourself today?
  11. All employees or just executives? by gcauthon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like how they lump everyone into one big category. Unless you've been living in a cave for the past 5 years, it should be obvious who the biggest crooks are. Hint, they all have 3-letter acronyms for titles.

  12. Always has been, always will be a problem by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Stealing money from the till, stealing insider information, gaming the quarterly sales to boost the stock price, etc., have always been an issue. If you employee human beings, these things will happen whether or not computers are used. Their actions don't even need to be illegal, simple carelessness can harm a company as much, or even more, than outright theft.

    Careful screening during hiring, sufficient training and re-training during employment, as well as attentiveness are the keys to mitigating these problems. Restricting e-mail, firewalls, etc., are simply putting fingers in the dike.

  13. Is security the answer? by loony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're in a situation where you really have to worry that much about your own people, doesn't that just show that management has failed to provide a good working environment and create loyalty?

    The only effect of security is going to be that the few loyal employees you have get pissed and turn against you too. And for anyone who has done only a little bit of hacking, we all know useful security is way too expensive... You'd need to audit virtually everything that's going on on a server and there are only a few government agencies that can efford that much money.

    So why not do something more useful with the money? Free coke for employees on tuesdays. Or fix that darn pothole at the entrance of the parking lot. Put a few plants up in the office... That is all money better spent than on some lack luster, process bound security measures...

    Peter.

  14. Re:opportunities for workplace crime are growing? by helix_r · · Score: 5, Insightful


    If an employee wants to screw up his employer, there are 1001 ways to do that-- with or without involving IT staff or systems.

    There is nothing new here except that more and more companies are treating their employees as disposable temps that can be dropped simply to increase share price. It is not surprising that in today's enviroments employees are more likely to feel they need revenge.

    Security lapses happen for a reason. Instead of attempting the sisphian task of "locking down" all systems, perhaps companies should address the root causes that incentivise their employees to behave badly.

  15. Biotech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I work in the biotech biz. We've been warned about Chinese "students" snafing our secrets. Thought it was a lot of tinfoil hat paranoia until we saw logs of HUGE attachments going to Asian hotmail addresses. Guess what some of those attachements were? Research data going straight back to China.

    Needless to say, his worker agreements were terminated and the person shipped back.

  16. Who do you trust then? by Vapon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't trust employees, who is securing the network for you? As a network admin I have full access to a company's full network within a week of starting a new job, otherwise I am unable to do my job.

    There will always be a level of trust needed between employers and employees since even if the president of a company can set up the security for a company they would still have to trust someone to enforce it, and that person would have the ability to abuse.

  17. Make Sure You Own It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You don't own it, but companies expect the same loyalty as if you owned it.

    See the contradiction? Why should an employee care about something they don't own?

    Given that the majority of companies wouldn't hesistate to act against the employees interest if there is any suggestion of compromosing the companies's interest, why should an employee protect a typical company's interest apart from doing the bare minimum required to preserve their own job?

    Companies are just repaing the "benefits" of years of treating employees as "production units".

    Yes I'm posting as an AC because I don't want any potential employers to know that I don't really care about their company apart from the fact it pays me money.

    (I'm not advocating slacking off in life or being bitter and twisted. Just make sure the things you dedicate yourself to are either THINGS YOU OWN or a charitable cause that you think is worthy. Working for someone else's profit is what you do to make money so you can do do what really matters. Don't dedicate your life to making profit for someone else.)

    1. Re:Make Sure You Own It! by ThatNuttyPeej · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't own it, but companies expect the same loyalty as if you owned it.

      See the contradiction? Why should an employee care about something they don't own?


      Because of a phenomenon known in scientific circles as the paycheck.

      --
      This sentence's period was stolen This sentence knows who took it:
    2. Re:Make Sure You Own It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't own it, but companies expect the same loyalty as if you owned it.

      See the contradiction? Why should an employee care about something they don't own?


      >>>Because of a phenomenon known in scientific circles as the paycheck.

      There is a fundamental point overlooked here. I assume you're just being flippant but, the original poster didn't say he planned on destroying or stealing, only that he didn't care. The man in the apartment downstairs from me has a nice car, and I respect the car by not doing anything untoward to it but, I don't care about the car. The paycheck will make us work on things we wouldn't otherwise work on. It won't make us care.

      Now if pride of work can be achieved then, I'll care.

    3. Re:Make Sure You Own It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Been talking to the HR department too much lately?

      Most businesses that have only one customer are doomed. To be accurate this analogy would require that the employee be allowed to work for multiple employers and be allowed to balance the interests of those employers. Most employers would not not happy with this and would probably accuse the employee of not having the company's interests at heart and sack them.

      Despite the talk, a business DOESN'T have its customers' interests at heart. The main interest of a business is making money. It is interested in the customers interests only as far as those interests make the business money. (Try proposing to IBM that they give you a million dollars because you are a customer and it is in your interest.)

      *If* an employee treats themselves as a business they should only be furthering their employer's interests to the extent that they align with their own and make themselves money.

  18. Insiders ARE threats! (remember iBill last week?) by GringoGoiano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Insiders can be real threats, the BIGGEST threats. An insider can steal much more than a hacker ever can. And many insiders think they can get away with it. Just look at the porn-billing iBill incident made public last week.

    The best policy is to log everything that happens in an enterprise, to a level required to reconstruct past bad behavior. You can't keep your insiders away from information they need to do their jobs. Trust, but also verify! There are products out there like Sensage (http://www.sensage.com/ ) that can collect, centralize, and make available years of log data for an IT organization. While this might not prevent the theft in the first place, a company can crack down on and prosecute current/former misbehaving insiders. Sensage will do very well, as will many other companies in this space (including recent Slashdot heavy banner-advertiser Splunk (http://www.splunk.com/ ) ).

    I look forward to seeing how well these products do. It's time one of them went public so we can gauge interest.

  19. IT 101 by zero1101 · · Score: 4, Funny

    99% percent of the time, employees are not a threat because they're malicious...they're a threat because they're very, very stupid.

  20. Cough.. Ahem.. & what about we honest employee by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As far as I am concerned, anything I spend almost a third of my life doing has to pay me enough to live comfortably *and* has to stimulate me as a job. In other words, I don't care how much my employer pays me, if they treat me like dirt and/or give me a boring job to do, then it's up to me to withdraw my services & go find another employer that can give me an interesting jonb.

    Fortunately, my job does stimulate me (it's not perfect but it's more good than bad) & allows me to live comfortably within the law. I'm treated pretty well, fairly autonomous in what I do & I have no interest in screwing over my employer - I don't care what money I was offered for "trade secrets", I wouldn't do it; my integrity is far more important to me.

    The point I'm trying to make is that in my experience, most people are like me rather than potential criminals - it's just a shame that anyone who works for an American company at the moment (like me) constantly has Sarbanes Oxley rammed down their throats & endless training about "work ethics" purely because a few corrupt CEOs in other companies have decided not to work ethically.

    At the end of it all, it is *just* a job and most people are inventive enough to find other sources of legal income if they choose to resign and walk out the door. If I chose to walk out the door, my employer can take their laptop back & any backups of my data - I'm just not interested in keeping it/

    Sure, there are internal security threats in any organisation but mostly it's due to employee stupidity rather than criminal activities - and in my view, no company spends enough on training employees to be less stupid; it's far easier to close down a few more ports on the firewall and put a few more banned sites in the web proxies than educate people about the dangers of webmail.

    And I am *STILL TRULY AMAZED* at the number of Windows users around me who do NOT change that STUPID default setting of "Hide extensions of known file types" - the BIGGEST security threat of all... believe me, turn that setting off and tell people not to open .BAT, .EXE and Office documents from sources they do not 100% trust & your security problems will dramatically reduce overnight.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  21. Greed doesn't win by redelm · · Score: 4, Informative
    Look at game theory: betrayal and greed only work in the very short term. Co-operation works much better long term. Different people have different time horizons (discount rates), but the system has long memories. Getting longer with electronics.

  22. A nation of fear and paranoia by mrraven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fear of employees, fear of Arabs owning the ports, fear of non existent WMDs in Iraq, fear of porn, fear of violent video games, fear little Johnny will be kidnapped if he's out of eye sight for even a millisecond, fear, fear, fear, it's all the MSM and our "leaders" speak of these days. Ever since 911 the U.S. has become a nation ruled by fear and paranoia. Is anyone sick of it yet?

    Whatever happened to rugged individualism, proud freedom, and respect for individual dignity without need for spying on employees, and fretting about "intellectual property" and "national security." How diminished we have become, how pathetic, how cowering.

    Fight back damn it, join unions to protect your rights at work, protest, make yourself heard before the candle of freedom is extinquished entirely.

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?