Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Do I Give IT a Login On Our Dept. Server?
jddorian writes "I am head of a clinical division at an academic hospital (not Radiology, but similarly tech oriented). My fellow faculty (a dozen or so) want to switch from a paper calendar to electronic (night and weekend on-call schedule). Most have an iPhone or similar, so I envisaged a CalDAV server. The Hospital IT department doesn't offer any iPhone compatible calendar tool, so I bought (with my cash) a tiny server, installed BSD and OpenLDAP for accounts, and installed and configured DAViCal. After I tested it out, I emailed IT to ask to allow port 8443 through the hospital firewall to this server. The tech (after asking what port 8443 was for), said he would unblock the port after I provide him with a login account on the machine (though 'I don't need root access'). I was taken aback, and after considering it, I am still leaning toward opposing this request, possibly taking this up the chain. I'm happy to allow any scan, to ensure it has no security issues, but I'd rather not let anyone else have a login account. What do the readers of Slashdot think? Should I give IT a login account on a server that is not owned or managed by them?"
.... you'd be breaking network and security policies up the wazoo by plugging your own server into the network, much less having a machine that IT couldn't manage and audit.
But instead of asking "should I give IT a login account on a server that is not owned or managed by them?" perhaps you should ask "should I give IT a login account on a server that is on their network?"
It becomes a lot less clear in that formulation, huh?
Why does a server that is not owned or managed by the IT department exist inside the firewall?
In my workplace that's a sacking offence.
Have you asked him why he wants a shell? If not, why the hell not? And if so, why haven't you told us?
You shouldn't be deploying rogue hardware that is not company owned at any place of business let alone a hospital. Have you even considered the compliance ramifications?
You're asking them to open ports and you're "taken aback" for them asking for an account? They ARE the IT department.... did you even bother asking them if they had the capability of doing what you wanted before you reinvented the wheel?
You may not think that IT owns or manages your server, but they do own or manage the network. Imagine if some guy from IT came down to you and wanted to start looking through radiology records. I'm sure you'd ask him if it was ok to look over his shoulder every now and again before you gave him full access.
If you're hit by a car tomorrow and die you want someone else to be able to pick up the work and go forward. Once upon a time I had a VP I worked for at an ISP put me and the other head of the IT department on a plane with him to LA. The three of us were the only ones with access to the entire companies systems. I mentioned to him, if the plane went down, the company would probably be dead within a week. He just laughed it off.
That said, your IT department are the best ones to handle this. I doubt the hospital is paying you to play tech nerd, I'm sure you have other work you should be doing. The IT guys are PAID to do this and are screened carefully (at least I hope so) by management to be trustworthy in doing it.
It sounds to me more like you're looking for job security by being the only one with keys to the castle.
You are operating a server, behind the firewall, on their infrastructure, in their facility. You, (un)fortunately, don't make the rules. What you're doing sounds great and the lengths you've gone to make it happen are commendable. But I can't imagine any decent business being run while allowing any employee to run any server they want behind their firewalls without at least some oversight. You're going to have to follow their rules, sorry.
If you are able to put a server on the hospital's network and have it working without IT approval (apparently), then I'd say the hospital has a bigger problem.
Never mind the fact that IT is unable or unwilling to support the tools that you and your team need to do their jobs.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
They can also not provide it a network port. When the server gets pwned it will be IT people blame.
Sounds great. He can have access to the network switch port and the firewall opened up as soon as that transaction is complete. The Hospital IT should have switched off the network port the second they heard of this machine. Well really the network ports should just not all be on to begin with.
At the large company I worked for, hooking up personal computers to the network was a terminable offense. So no, you don't give them a login - you don't set this up at all.
The chief reason appeared to be fear of viruses and hackers, but there are many, many more. The hacker front can be a bit obscure: What if your CEO read the article about RSA getting hacked by an excel file with an embedded flash object, and the CIO assures the board that all computers will have flash removed and tasks IT with identifying and removing flash everywhere? How are they going to look having to explain 'well, we got everything, except for the personal computers that we don't have access to'?
Lets say people start relying on the service you are providing with a personal computer under your desk. What if it goes down? Helpdesk will get called, and need to know what to tell the caller so they don't appear incompetent, and need to be able to address the problem. What if IT is required to certify that all of their computers have X patch applied as part of a compliance audit for certification? What if a corporate policy goes out that no computer can run unecnrypted ftp regardless of port # they run it on? What if your company is obligated to ensure that terminated employees can't log in to servers? What if a lawsuit is served and your company is required to provide copies of all records pertaining to meetings with client xyz, and your calendar server has meeting info on it but your IT department doesn't even know it exists? None of these things are unreasonable, but none of them can be done easily if you're allowed to set up whatever box you want doing whatever.
Sure, it makes your job harder if you have to go through official channels to get the things you need to get your job done. But your company needs to be able to get their job done too, and a bunch of random whatever-somebody-set-up-under-their-desk systems makes that really hard.
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
That explains a lot. Guess what, Head of the Division: just because you are smart, and well trained in YOUR field, does not make you a computer or network expert. As the head of a division at an academic hospital, you have a responsibility to not only follow HIPPA (or your country's equivalent) requirements yourself, but to set an example for the medical professionals training at your facility.
Do you simply not understand that plugging unauthorized and unaudited equipment into a hospital's network is not only a very bad idea, but against the law in most places? As the head of a division, you should understand that.
The fact that you were "taken aback" by a request to follow policy indicates that you most likely view this as a dick waving contest. It is not. Your dick will not shrink if you allow the computer professionals to audit your work and comply with hospital policy and the law. No one expects you to be a network expert, that is your hobby, not your profession.
In short, stop being a condescending ass and let the professionals do their job. If I knew an untrained "division head' was setting up unauthorized networking equipment, I would avoid that hospital like the plague, as I don't want hacked equipment broadcasting my medical history to the world, understand?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hilarious. This story has polarized Slashdot into the "I actually work in IT in a systems administration capacity" camp and the "I tinker with computers as a hobby" camp. The tinkerers are actually taking offense that the "so called experts" won't immediately recognize their superior genius. The experts, for their part, seem used to this crap. Here's the deal, tinkerers: we will respect your mad skillz only after you have demonstrated them several times and jumped through all the proper hoops. Until then, you are just like any other Little User. No insult intended, but this is our job, and our butts on the line, not yours.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You don't have to take it aggressively...The question is genuine...What part offended you?
The part where I am an IT administrator who knows better than to play doctor, and the part where the poster is an (I assume) doctor who doesn't know better than to play IT. I know what I'm doing after years of training and experience. Yeah, I could read the manual and run an XRay machine, but how incredibly stupid and irresponsible would it be for me to do that.
I don't care if it's a doctor, lawyer, or plumber... but if they think just cause they play with OSS at home that they are a l337 hax0r who will post to /. for sympathy against "The Man" is SORELY mistaken.
We do things for a reason, especially when it comes to security. When you are dealing with military or hospital systems, someone could die if IT screws up. And we sure as hell don't need cock sure users pulling the IT equivilant of "Don't worry, I play a Dr. on TV," on our networks.
Am I aggressive? Yes, because this potentially puts patients at risk. I'm just as aggressive if I were to post on a doctor forum, "Hey, I brought in my home sewing kit to do stitches. I watch House and I'm pretty good when I practice on dolls at home. Why does the floor director refuse to let me help out?"
I8-D