"Hey Andrew, what's the best way to transfer these files from my old 
laptop to my new one? Use a couple of CDs?"

"Oh, well why don't you just copy them into a network drive, and then 
copy that back to your new laptop? That'll be a lot easier than messing 
around with CDs."

"Nice idea, but there's some files I'd rather not end up on the network, 
if you know what I mean. I'll just use CDs."

Right. So... rather than store the data temporarily on a busy fileserver 
where it's completely unlikely anybody will be able to recover it in a 
fe weeks' time, you're going to permanently burn it onto CDs, which 
you'll then need to find a way to destroy?

And this is safer because...?

It's almost like that discussion I had the other week with the person 
saying "you don't still use tapes do you? Why don't you use DVDs 
instead?" (Um, gee, because a DVD has about 1/10th the storage capacity?)

I'm also reminded of the story of the user who religiously kept all her 
files on floppy disks so that she wouldn't "fill up" the hard drive in 
her PC. (Which had a capacity of many gigabytes.) Flawless logic - until 
you comprehend the fact that a HD holds many times more data than a 
floppy...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Right. So... rather than store the data temporarily on a busy fileserver 
> where it's completely unlikely anybody will be able to recover it in a fe 
> weeks' time, you're going to permanently burn it onto CDs, which you'll 
> then need to find a way to destroy?

I'd use CDs too if I were her, otherwise I wouldn't know who else was 
looking at the files or where they were getting backed up etc.  At least she 
can take the CDs home or burn them or shred them or whatever and be 100% 
sure nobody else has used them.

Anyway, I would be more concerned, as the IT dude, exactly what sort of 
files she doesn't want to have on the network.  Did you remind her that if 
anything happens to her laptop she will then lose those files forever?  And 
that she shouldn't be keeping personal data on company laptops ;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> I'd use CDs too if I were her, otherwise I wouldn't know who else was 
> looking at the files or where they were getting backed up etc.  At least 
> she can take the CDs home or burn them or shred them or whatever and be 
> 100% sure nobody else has used them.

Mmm, OK.

> Anyway, I would be more concerned, as the IT dude, exactly what sort of 
> files she doesn't want to have on the network.

That *is* a most interesting question, is it not?

> Did you remind her that 
> if anything happens to her laptop she will then lose those files 
> forever?

I would imagine she knows this - but who can tell?

Actually, one time our accountant paid a visit to the USA. When she came 
back, her laptop didn't work any more. When she turned it on, it made a 
noise rather like a coffea grinder. I didn't know a HD could sound like 
that - but apparently it can! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> "Hey Andrew, what's the best way to transfer these files from my old 
> laptop to my new one? Use a couple of CDs?"
> 
> "Oh, well why don't you just copy them into a network drive, and then 
> copy that back to your new laptop? That'll be a lot easier than messing 
> around with CDs."
> 
> "Nice idea, but there's some files I'd rather not end up on the network, 
> if you know what I mean. I'll just use CDs."
> 


It could be that the files are illegal or could simply get the person 
fired.  The person could simply consider some of the material highly 
personal.


Copying to the network exposes those files outside the computer out of 
the user's control.
Using a CD keeps it in their hands that they can control.
A CD can be destroyed much more quickly and directly than data on a 
network server.  A network server may audit each file that it stores - 
and heaved forbid the file get backed up - out of the user's control.

Call me paranoid, but I have 'rules' that I follow about what 
connections I place between my home and work environments.  If I were in 
his shoes I might come to the same conclusion.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> Call me paranoid, but I have 'rules' that I follow about what 
> connections I place between my home and work environments.  If I were in 
> his shoes I might come to the same conclusion.

	Is it that hard to simply connect two laptops directly?

-- 
The next war will determine not what is right, but what is left.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
486cbc2b$1@news.povray.org...
> I'm also reminded of the story of the user who religiously kept all her 
> files on floppy disks so that she wouldn't "fill up" the hard drive in her 
> PC. (Which had a capacity of many gigabytes.) Flawless logic - until you 
> comprehend the fact that a HD holds many times more data than a floppy...

Once I had a secretary who never used the HD at all because she had been 
told that hard discs were not reliable.

Everything she wrote was stored in a single Word file kept on a single 
floppy. Every letter was a new page.

G.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I'd use CDs too if I were her, otherwise I wouldn't know who else was 
> looking at the files or where they were getting backed up etc.

I would have recommended a USB memory stick, myself.

> Anyway, I would be more concerned, as the IT dude, exactly what sort of 
> files she doesn't want to have on the network.  

Is there anyone here who *doesn't* think it's porn?


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> you comprehend the fact that a HD holds many times more data than a 
> floppy...

I had an amusing thought the other day. If you had an entire Apple ][ 
for every byte of memory an Apple ][ could address, you could fit all 
the memory of all those machines on one DVD.

You can't even buy a hard drive that won't hold five Commodore Pet 
computers worth of memory for every *bit* of memory a Commodore Pet 
could address.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

>> I'd use CDs too if I were her, otherwise I wouldn't know who else was 
>> looking at the files or where they were getting backed up etc.
> 
> I would have recommended a USB memory stick, myself.

That only works if you *have* a USB stick. :-P

>> Anyway, I would be more concerned, as the IT dude, exactly what sort 
>> of files she doesn't want to have on the network.  
> 
> Is there anyone here who *doesn't* think it's porn?

Far more likely to be pictures of her baby girl paddling on the beach.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> Once I had a secretary who never used the HD at all because she had been 
> told that hard discs were not reliable.

Oh, the irony!

HDs were once of questionably reliability, but floppies are so 
hopelessly unreliable it's not even worth thinking about!

> Everything she wrote was stored in a single Word file kept on a single 
> floppy. Every letter was a new page.

Wow.

That's really special.

I mean, forget for a moment the fact that editing a Word document stored 
on a floppy is 97% guaranteed to result in file corruption... A new 
document for each page?

I'm... stunned.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Is there anyone here who *doesn't* think it's porn?

	Dunno. I have loads of files on my computer that I wouldn't want to put 
on a shared drive. Financial documents, scripts with passwords embedded 
in them, drafts of letters, etc.

-- 
"Class, please! If you don't learn Roman numerals, you'll never know the 
dates certain motion pictures were copyrighted." -- Mrs. Krabappel in 
The Simpsons.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I would have recommended a USB memory stick, myself.
> 
> That only works if you *have* a USB stick. :-P

	If the files are that important, I'm sure he can buy one. They're cheap.

-- 
"Class, please! If you don't learn Roman numerals, you'll never know the 
dates certain motion pictures were copyrighted." -- Mrs. Krabappel in 
The Simpsons.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> I'd use CDs too if I were her, otherwise I wouldn't know who else was 
> looking at the files or where they were getting backed up etc.  At least 
> she can take the CDs home or burn them or shred them or whatever and be 
> 100% sure nobody else has used them.
> 

And if it's a company laptop, normally connected to the company network, 
she should know that admins can access all that data at any time. 
Without her noticing.

Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read 
your files/emails ;).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> HDs were once of questionably reliability, but floppies are so 
> hopelessly unreliable it's not even worth thinking about!

That (HD's unreliability) is what RAID is for.

> 
> I mean, forget for a moment the fact that editing a Word document stored 
> on a floppy is 97% guaranteed to result in file corruption... 

I don't recall so, but if you'll take the floppy out before closing the 
document (and won't put it back in quickly enough), you'll have 100% 
sure corruption.

> A new 
> document for each page?

No, a new page for each document, ie. 5 letters on a floppy means a 
5-page document.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

>> HDs were once of questionably reliability, but floppies are so 
>> hopelessly unreliable it's not even worth thinking about!
> 
> That (HD's unreliability) is what RAID is for.

Yeah, but I mean I can remember being warned not to move a computer 
while it's turned on for fear of causing a head crash. Now they put them 
in PORTABLE MP3 PLAYERS! (I must admit, I feel happier with the 
solid-state ones...)

>> I mean, forget for a moment the fact that editing a Word document 
>> stored on a floppy is 97% guaranteed to result in file corruption... 
> 
> I don't recall so, but if you'll take the floppy out before closing the 
> document (and won't put it back in quickly enough), you'll have 100% 
> sure corruption.

Yeah, that too.

But according to the Word MVP site, it's a very bad idea to edit files 
on a flopy. Copy them to the HD, edit them, save, close, then copy back 
to floppy. That's the recommendation anyway... [This probably only 
applies to new versions of Word. Older ones were less accident-prone.]

>> A new document for each page?
> 
> No, a new page for each document, ie. 5 letters on a floppy means a 
> 5-page document.

Gah. I typed that the wrong way round... although thinking about it, 
what I actually typed would be really weird too!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:16:17 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read
> your files/emails .

I've been saying that for *years*.  I'd get questions every once in a 
while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the 
network.  My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT 
admins?".

Granted, there are *some* limited cases where this is necessary because 
of regulations in some industries.  That's what happens when people who 
know nothing about technology create legislation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:43:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> You can't even buy a hard drive that won't hold five Commodore Pet
> computers worth of memory for every *bit* of memory a Commodore Pet
> could address.

I'm trying to remember - what was the addressable space fro the Pet?  
There were so many models, but the address space was the same on all of 
them IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:16:17 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read
>> your files/emails .
> 
> I've been saying that for *years*.  I'd get questions every once in a 
> while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the 
> network.  My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT 
> admins?".

A manager thinks he and only he is the boss, unless it is a woman. In 
which case she thinks she is the boss. I think it comes as a surprise 
when they find out that other people have more access than they. And no, 
they are not going to give them the same permissions. Especially if 
these people are much less pays than themselves.

In our hospital the IT people have access to all rooms and labs, even 
the ones that are protected with badge readers because people may be 
using e.g. genetically modified organisms or dangerous chemicals there. 
It is impossible to have their access restricted (or force them to get 
the right qualifications to enter). So we simply have to trust them that 
  they only enter in case of a real emergency, i.e one that can't be 
solved by disconnecting the networkport.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:17:10 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:16:17 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> 
>>> Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read
>>> your files/emails .
>> 
>> I've been saying that for *years*.  I'd get questions every once in a
>> while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the
>> network.  My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT
>> admins?".
> 
> A manager thinks he and only he is the boss, unless it is a woman. In
> which case she thinks she is the boss. I think it comes as a surprise
> when they find out that other people have more access than they. And no,
> they are not going to give them the same permissions. Especially if
> these people are much less pays than themselves.

I've only on a couple of occasions working in IT had a boss who insisted 
on equivalent permissions to the ones I had.  One was a relatively small 
business (just a couple hundred users), and he actually backed me up, so 
it made sense.

But the whole notion of having an administrator whom you don't trust is 
just inherently wrong to me.  If you don't trust them (as a manager) AND 
can show cause WHY you don't trust them, then they shouldn't be your 
sysadmin.  End of story.

On the flip side of that, it's the sysadmin's responsibility to act in a 
trustworthy way.  I *always* had access to financial information, salary 
information, and the like, and I *never* *ever* abused my authority to 
see what my peers were making or find out how much the CEO was making.  I 
honestly just didn't care - it's not as if knowing that is going to get 
me a raise anyways.

> In our hospital the IT people have access to all rooms and labs, even
> the ones that are protected with badge readers because people may be
> using e.g. genetically modified organisms or dangerous chemicals there.
> It is impossible to have their access restricted (or force them to get
> the right qualifications to enter). So we simply have to trust them that
>   they only enter in case of a real emergency, i.e one that can't be
> solved by disconnecting the networkport.

That's a good level of trust.  I'll bet the management puts a lot of 
effort into making sure they hire people who are trustworthy.

Some companies have an "administrator agreement" that the admins must 
sign that says they won't abuse their access.  Last company I worked for 
had that, ironically, I never did sign one - they just never asked me to.

I also have always insisted (when I've had administrative access) that I 
be allowed to disable my own accounts and to *force* my boss to change 
the administrative password with me not watching so they *know* I don't 
have that information.  As an IT person, there's nothing worse than being 
even *accused* of inappropriate access once you've left the company.  
That can be a career killer.  I was asked to leave one job by my boss' 
boss (don't know if the boss ever found out why I was leaving - it was 
because he was a very poor manager and I called attention to it with his 
boss - and his boss had been given the task of turning the poor manager 
into a good manager; so basically, I was telling the director he was 
failing at one of his main objectives, and he just didn't like it being 
pointed out).  I still got them to let me delete my own account and then 
change the administrator (and the emergency backdoor administrator) 
passwords.

I never heard from them again.  Well, I bumped into the boss at a trade 
show a few years later, and he acted like I should be happy to see him.  
I wasn't, but I was polite to him, while still getting out of the lunch 
area as quickly as was reasonably possible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm trying to remember - what was the addressable space fro the Pet?  

Same as every 8-bit computer, I'd think.  64Kbytes.  (I just picked 
Apple and Commodore pretty much at random as popular machines.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:43:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm trying to remember - what was the addressable space fro the Pet?
> 
> Same as every 8-bit computer, I'd think.  64Kbytes.  (I just picked
> Apple and Commodore pretty much at random as popular machines.)

Ah, yes, that sounds right.  Don't know why that didn't occur to me.  
I'll chalk it up to "pre-holiday brain shutdown". ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:486d5613@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:16:17 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
> > Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read
> > your files/emails .
>
> I've been saying that for *years*.  I'd get questions every once in a
> while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the
> network.  My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT
> admins?".

I see a similar question on the SQL forums all too often.

How do I prevent the database administrators from seeing the
views\procs\data in a database?
Simple answer: You don't

I was in a training course once with a whole bunch of sysadmins (windows
server 2003) and while the instructor was out of the room, one was boasting
that he could surf any website regardless of the company's internet usage
policy and he would never get caught.

For some reaon, I found that a most offensive attitude for a sysadmin to
have.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:32:51 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:486d5613@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:16:17 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>>
>> > Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can
>> > read your files/emails .
>>
>> I've been saying that for *years*.  I'd get questions every once in a
>> while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the
>> network.  My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT
>> admins?".
> 
> I see a similar question on the SQL forums all too often.
> 
> How do I prevent the database administrators from seeing the
> views\procs\data in a database?
> Simple answer: You don't

It's just amazing to me that this attitude exists in business.  At the 
same time, it's not surprising to me because clearly the people who are 
asking these questions don't understand the meaning of "unrestricted" in 
the phrase "unrestricted access".

> I was in a training course once with a whole bunch of sysadmins (windows
> server 2003) and while the instructor was out of the room, one was
> boasting that he could surf any website regardless of the company's
> internet usage policy and he would never get caught.

The funny thing is, a sysadmin who thinks like that is more or less bound 
to get caught violating the policy.  My first rule of use of systems in 
the office:  *Always* assume someone else is watching.  It might also be 
appropriate to add "and they're out to get you." - even valid sysadmin 
decisions to restrict access lead to users with a chip on their shoulder 
who want to show you up.  Don't give them the chance:  Follow the same 
rules you expect them to follow.

Otherwise, when they find out (and they will), you're the one with 
"hypocrite" tattooed on your forehead.  And that follows you to every job.

> For some reaon, I found that a most offensive attitude for a sysadmin to
> have.

I would agree with that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:32:51 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
> 

> The funny thing is, a sysadmin who thinks like that is more or less bound 
> to get caught violating the policy.  My first rule of use of systems in 
> the office:  *Always* assume someone else is watching.  It might also be 
> appropriate to add "and they're out to get you." - even valid sysadmin 
> decisions to restrict access lead to users with a chip on their shoulder 
> who want to show you up.  Don't give them the chance:  Follow the same 
> rules you expect them to follow.
> 
> Otherwise, when they find out (and they will), you're the one with 
> "hypocrite" tattooed on your forehead.  And that follows you to every job.
> 
>> For some reaon, I found that a most offensive attitude for a sysadmin to
>> have.
> 
> I would agree with that.
> 
seconded

Post a reply to this message

> Dunno. I have loads of files on my computer that I wouldn't want to put 
> on a shared drive. Financial documents, scripts with passwords embedded 
> in them, drafts of letters, etc.

But on a *work* computer?

Post a reply to this message

>>> I would have recommended a USB memory stick, myself.
>>
>> That only works if you *have* a USB stick. :-P
> 
>     If the files are that important, I'm sure he can buy one. They're 
> cheap.

Not in 20 minutes flat, no.

[Recall that we're in the middle of nowhere.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> I've been saying that for *years*.  I'd get questions every once in a
>> while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the
>> network.  My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT
>> admins?".
> 
> I see a similar question on the SQL forums all too often.
> 
> How do I prevent the database administrators from seeing the
> views\procs\data in a database?
> Simple answer: You don't

Er... like, WTF?

The sysadmin has absolute power. They can do *anything*. Up to and 
including completely replacing the entire OS with one that will allow 
them to do whatever they want. You *cannot* prevent somebody who wields 
that kind of power from doing whatever the hell they want - so they had 
*better* be worthy of such trust!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:03:49 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Er... like, WTF?

Well, it's not that difficult to understand - this is what happens when 
technically incompetent people decide how to implement policy.

From what you've seen, you've witnessed some of this behaviour firsthand.

That said, there are ways, for example, to prevent a sysadmin from seeing 
files in a filesystem.  File-level encryption, for example - or directory-
level.  With Linux, this is almost so simple as to be trivial using encfs 
(of course with requisite Linux-foo skills).

But ultimately, yes, you're right - a sysadmin needs to be worthy of the 
trust placed in them.  That's rule #1.  They may not be able to get at 
the encrypted files, but the sure could still nuke them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Well, it's not that difficult to understand - this is what happens when 
> technically incompetent people decide how to implement policy.

What's technical? The sysadmin is, by definition, God. You can't stop 
God from doing things. QED. You don't need to know a thing about 
technology to comprehend this extremely simple principle.

> That said, there are ways, for example, to prevent a sysadmin from seeing 
> files in a filesystem.  File-level encryption, for example - or directory-
> level.  With Linux, this is almost so simple as to be trivial using encfs 
> (of course with requisite Linux-foo skills).

Yeah, sure, but the *key* has to be stored somewhere. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> That said, there are ways, for example, to prevent a sysadmin from seeing 
>> files in a filesystem.  File-level encryption, for example - or 
>> directory-
>> level.  With Linux, this is almost so simple as to be trivial using encfs 
>> (of course with requisite Linux-foo skills).
>
> Yeah, sure, but the *key* has to be stored somewhere. ;-)

Just use Windows built-in encryption, that works off your login password 
doesn't it?  Even if the admin can remotely log in, they won't be able to 
read your encrypted files unless they somehow get your password.

Or just zip things up with a password.

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah, sure, but the *key* has to be stored somewhere. ;-)
> 
> Just use Windows built-in encryption, that works off your login password 
> doesn't it?

Wouldn't that mean that every single time you change your login 
password, all of your files instantly become unreadable?

What I suspect happens is that it's actually asymmetrically encrypted, 
and the decryption key is encrypted with your login password. That means 
if you change your login password, you gotta change one thing - the 
encrypted decryption key - and all your stuff is still accessible.

> Even if the admin can remotely log in, they won't be able 
> to read your encrypted files unless they somehow get your password.

Do you know what the "use reversible encryption" tickbox in AD does? >:-D

> Or just zip things up with a password.

Now *that* could actually work. Especially if you use that password for 
nothing else. Now all the sysadmin needs to do is install a keylogger... 
oh, wait... ;-)

Anything you can do, the sysadmin can undo. He controls the machine 
you're using. You can't win. [Theoretically at least. In practice you 
can make it too hard to be worth the bother.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:22:12 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Well, it's not that difficult to understand - this is what happens when
>> technically incompetent people decide how to implement policy.
> 
> What's technical? The sysadmin is, by definition, God. You can't stop
> God from doing things. QED. You don't need to know a thing about
> technology to comprehend this extremely simple principle.

You'd think so, but clearly the evidence suggests it's not that obvious - 
otherwise they *would* have grasped it.

>> That said, there are ways, for example, to prevent a sysadmin from
>> seeing files in a filesystem.  File-level encryption, for example - or
>> directory- level.  With Linux, this is almost so simple as to be
>> trivial using encfs (of course with requisite Linux-foo skills).
> 
> Yeah, sure, but the *key* has to be stored somewhere. ;-)

The key is in my head.  If you can extract my password from my brain, 
you'll have proven that you *are* God.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:40:39 +0200, scott wrote:

> Just use Windows built-in encryption, that works off your login password
> doesn't it?  Even if the admin can remotely log in, they won't be able
> to read your encrypted files unless they somehow get your password.

If the built-in encryption keys off the login password only (ie, the 
login password just unlocks the encryption key), then as an admin, you 
just have to change the user's password.  If there is a weakness to 
encfs, that's what it is as well - the key is stored in an encrypted 
keystore that's locked with the password (so I understand).  But it's not 
the login password, so if you root my machine and change my login 
password, you're still not getting at the encrypted files.

Still, you could use something like truecrypt to get around that if it's 
that critical the data be unreadable without the key.

> Or just zip things up with a password.

That's a pain to use, though - used to do that back in the early 90's - I 
even wrote a wrapper program that took a randomization key and generated 
a 256-character pseudo-random pkzip password for that purpose.  Always 
had to purge deleted files from the system after working on the code a 
bit (old NetWare server, 2.15 and then 3.11).

If you don't securely wipe the unpacked files after you're done with 
them, then they can be recovered from the drive with relative ease.  And 
while you're using them, the files are exposed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> What I suspect happens is that it's actually asymmetrically encrypted, and 
> the decryption key is encrypted with your login password. That means if 
> you change your login password, you gotta change one thing - the encrypted 
> decryption key - and all your stuff is still accessible.

Yeh that's probably more like it - I just know that if you forget your login 
password you can never get back your encrypted data.

>> Even if the admin can remotely log in, they won't be able to read your 
>> encrypted files unless they somehow get your password.
>
> Do you know what the "use reversible encryption" tickbox in AD does? >:-D

AD? I normally tick the box in "encrypt" box in the file properties window.

> Now *that* could actually work. Especially if you use that password for 
> nothing else. Now all the sysadmin needs to do is install a keylogger... 
> oh, wait... ;-)

You can outsmart a key logger by simply typing in part of your password, 
then clicking the pointer to move the cursor, and typing in another bit, 
click again etc.  On my bank log-in I have to choose the numbers with the 
mouse, exactly to avoid keyloggers working I guess.  But I guess then the 
admin can install a mouse and screen logger too ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> Yeh that's probably more like it - I just know that if you forget your 
> login password you can never get back your encrypted data.

Oh, you need only guess what the password is. ;-)

>> Do you know what the "use reversible encryption" tickbox in AD does? >:-D
> 
> AD? I normally tick the box in "encrypt" box in the file properties window.

Active Directory. (The thing Windoze now uses to manage network user 
accounts.)

There's a tickbox that allows legacy systems to interoperate with 
Windoze. Legacy systems that require you to send the user's password in 
the clear. What this option basically does is allow the sysadmin to know 
what each user's password actually is. (Normally this isn't possible - 
the server only stores a hash *of* the password, not the password itself.)

> You can outsmart a key logger by simply typing in part of your password, 
> then clicking the pointer to move the cursor, and typing in another bit, 
> click again etc.  But I guess 
> then the admin can install a mouse and screen logger too ;-)

...exactly.

And if that doesn't work, a kernel-level debugger can see every octet of 
data in the machine's main RAM and swap file. There really is no escape.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> What's technical? The sysadmin is, by definition, God. You can't stop
>> God from doing things. QED. You don't need to know a thing about
>> technology to comprehend this extremely simple principle.
> 
> You'd think so, but clearly the evidence suggests it's not that obvious - 
> otherwise they *would* have grasped it.

*sigh* Human kind depresses me...

>> Yeah, sure, but the *key* has to be stored somewhere. ;-)
> 
> The key is in my head.  If you can extract my password from my brain, 
> you'll have proven that you *are* God.

Pah. Humans are so predictable. You show me a strong password, I'll show 
you a hidden paper note. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:49:58 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Anything you can do, the sysadmin can undo. He controls the machine
> you're using. You can't win. [Theoretically at least. In practice you
> can make it too hard to be worth the bother.]

That's the point of security measures - you raise the bar to the point 
that the cost exceeds the value of the data.  Basic security principle.

But my sysadmins don't have access to my machines.  First, I've got two 
laptops; I installed the OS and control the passwords.  I also work from 
home most of the time - 45 miles from the nearest sysadmin.

If I chose to encrypt files on my hard drive using encfs (as I use 
openSUSE) - and indeed I have for some that are sensitive for the company 
(but that they have copies of - source code, for example), they're not 
getting the files from my machine.  They *can* get them from the source 
repository servers, though.

And from our earlier conversation where I blew it on data recovery from 
wiped drives, I'd like to see them undo a secure wipe of the hard drives 
in these laptops.  Or the machines I traded in for the second laptop, for 
that matter (pulled my data off them, wiped the drive so they could 
install a fresh OS for the next user on it).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:24:28 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> a kernel-level debugger can see every octet of data in the machine's
> main RAM and swap file.

Hmmm, so you've reversed your opinion on whether or not a memory dump is 
useful? ;-) <scnr>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:26:37 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> What's technical? The sysadmin is, by definition, God. You can't stop
>>> God from doing things. QED. You don't need to know a thing about
>>> technology to comprehend this extremely simple principle.
>> 
>> You'd think so, but clearly the evidence suggests it's not that obvious
>> - otherwise they *would* have grasped it.
> 
> *sigh* Human kind depresses me...

At times it does me as well.  That's part of the curse of being smart; 
it's easy to see how idiotic most of the populace is.  Of course, we're 
*all* idiots from time to time.

>>> Yeah, sure, but the *key* has to be stored somewhere. ;-)
>> 
>> The key is in my head.  If you can extract my password from my brain,
>> you'll have proven that you *are* God.
> 
> Pah. Humans are so predictable. You show me a strong password, I'll show
> you a hidden paper note. ;-)

You won't find a hidden paper note on *my* desk.  I do actually have a 
background in security and systems administration, so I know not to do 
that.  Oh, and it's not on the bottom of my keyboard, either, so you can 
forget looking there.

The paper?  It doesn't exist for any of my passwords.  I keep them *all* 
in my head.  I've got one password that I've been using for nearly 20 
years (though not recently, now I think of it); > 20 characters long, and 
even accidentally typed on the screen, it just looks like a random stream 
of characters.  Muscle memory is a wonderful thing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> a kernel-level debugger can see every octet of data in the machine's
>> main RAM and swap file.
> 
> Hmmm, so you've reversed your opinion on whether or not a memory dump is 
> useful? ;-) <scnr>

Useful for trying to grab somebody's credit card number? Absolutely!

Useful for trying to work out why some piece of software that you know 
nothing about has crashed? Not really, no.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> *sigh* Human kind depresses me...
> 
> At times it does me as well.  That's part of the curse of being smart; 
> it's easy to see how idiotic most of the populace is.  Of course, we're 
> *all* idiots from time to time.

Worrying fact: 50% of the population has below-average intelligence. (!!!)

>> Pah. Humans are so predictable. You show me a strong password, I'll show
>> you a hidden paper note. ;-)
> 
> You won't find a hidden paper note on *my* desk.  I do actually have a 
> background in security and systems administration, so I know not to do 
> that.

Very, very few people are capable of coming up with strong passwords 
that they can actually remember.

> Muscle memory is a wonderful thing.

...until you get your right arm chopped off. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:03:55 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> a kernel-level debugger can see every octet of data in the machine's
>>> main RAM and swap file.
>> 
>> Hmmm, so you've reversed your opinion on whether or not a memory dump
>> is useful? ;-) <scnr>
> 
> Useful for trying to grab somebody's credit card number? Absolutely!

And how exactly do you propose to do that?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:06:01 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> *sigh* Human kind depresses me...
>> 
>> At times it does me as well.  That's part of the curse of being smart;
>> it's easy to see how idiotic most of the populace is.  Of course, we're
>> *all* idiots from time to time.
> 
> Worrying fact: 50% of the population has below-average intelligence.
> (!!!)

LOL, but mathematically sound.  More worrying is the 80% who think 
they're above average drivers.

>>> Pah. Humans are so predictable. You show me a strong password, I'll
>>> show you a hidden paper note. ;-)
>> 
>> You won't find a hidden paper note on *my* desk.  I do actually have a
>> background in security and systems administration, so I know not to do
>> that.
> 
> Very, very few people are capable of coming up with strong passwords
> that they can actually remember.

Actually, if you teach them to use a mnemonic device to remember it, most 
people actually can.  It's just that they haven't been taught how to 
remember something that seems random.

>> Muscle memory is a wonderful thing.
> 
> ...until you get your right arm chopped off. :-P

It's fortunate I have a brain to back it up.  I *have* actually typed 
that password in one-handed - in fact, with one finger.  I may even have 
done so with my nose once just to see if I could. :-P

And I actually *did* type it on a screen in front of a class of college 
students, too - none of them caught it or were able to remember it.  Of 
course, I told them what it was *after* clearing the screen.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Very, very few people are capable of coming up with strong passwords 
> that they can actually remember.

Especially when some stupid system forces you to change it every month.

Post a reply to this message

>> Very, very few people are capable of coming up with strong passwords 
>> that they can actually remember.
> 
> Especially when some stupid system forces you to change it every month.

...and this is bad because...?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Especially when some stupid system forces you to change it every month.
>
> ...and this is bad because...?

You try coming up with a different strong password every month, *and* 
remembering it without writing it down.  I doubt I'm the only user of this 
system who needs to write the password somewhere.  I wonder if security 
would actually be improved by removing the 1 month expiry.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:21:48 +0200, scott wrote:

>>> Especially when some stupid system forces you to change it every
>>> month.
>>
>> ...and this is bad because...?
> 
> You try coming up with a different strong password every month, *and*
> remembering it without writing it down.  I doubt I'm the only user of
> this system who needs to write the password somewhere.  I wonder if
> security would actually be improved by removing the 1 month expiry.

There have been studies done that suggest that changes that are too 
frequent reduce security for just this reason.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> You try coming up with a different strong password every month, *and* 
> remembering it without writing it down.

...I do this every month?

I mean, I guess it depends on how strong you consider to be "strong".

> I wonder if 
> security would actually be improved by removing the 1 month expiry.

Perhaps making the expiry a little longer would help.

The idea of course is that the faster the password expires, the less 
time a potential attacker has to try to crack your password. (And just 
in case an attacker does eventually get your password, changing it puts 
them back to square one.)

So I guess it's just a question of how long is "long enough".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> On the flip side of that, it's the sysadmin's responsibility to act in a 
> trustworthy way.  I *always* had access to financial information, salary 
> information, and the like, and I *never* *ever* abused my authority to 
> see what my peers were making or find out how much the CEO was making.  I 
> honestly just didn't care - it's not as if knowing that is going to get 
> me a raise anyways.
> 

On a sysadmin job (or janitor, or any other really important 
caretaker-job) there exists that little something called "work ethics".

> Jim


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:06:01 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>> Worrying fact: 50% of the population has below-average intelligence.
>> (!!!)

So... If we have 4 men, with intelligences 1, 8, 9 and 9, the average is 
(1+8+9+9)/4=6,75, so 75% of men are more intelligent than average person 
(who, if he existed, would be over 6 times as intelligent as the dumpest 
one).

> LOL, but mathematically sound.  More worrying is the 80% who think 
> they're above average drivers.

Measuring a best driver is very relative. My opinion is that there's a 
triangle, having endpoints of speed, economy and safety. If the car 
won't move, you're safe and economic, but you're not getting anywhere. 
If you'll take a risk, you'll lose safety and economy and gain speed. 
And ie. when overtaking someone increasing speed might gain you safety, 
but it'll reduce the economy. So basically you can't have 100% of all 
three of them - increasing one decreases at least one other. People have 
different *opinions* of what's the best placement on this map, ie. what 
combination of the three they are heading for, so it's very easy to 
think that "I'm better than the average" for 80+%, since the goal is 
different. Who's the best driver for some (good speed, high safety, 
average economy for example) is the worst driver for some (who would 
prefer great economy, average safety and average speed).

In my opinion, five nines of safety (99,999%), average economy and 
good/stable speed is the best spot to go for. But that's my *opinion*, 
not The Only Real Truth.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message