Would I agree that most or any of this things may not work but when some one tends to ignore documentation or processes nothing would work. I would say that most of us are guilty of not following or reading docs after we feel comfortable doing something,had success with it or have plenty of experience in other areas and with other tools. (specially when those docs are written by a person that does not understand product. ) reason that when we buy a new TV we don bother to read the provided paperwork and don't use it to the fullest potential.
An example. We would hand out a page of step/guide to our docs department, they would turn it into 10 pages that hid the relevant items/steps. I'm not a good writer or deep reader and would say over 50% of IT personnel are not either, based on my experience. I truly believe that most writer write to impress people and not to teach or guide and most companies have documentation to fill a requirement and not for the value that could provide. Just based on my personal access and experience. I've worked with SCCM for a while and many people do not understand how powerful the tool is, therefore not putting enough thought on implementation. If you think about it, this tool can bypass or circumvent almost any security tools you have in place. Based on this example and past experiences that have been seen, putting extra validation/steps that execute at runtime are the most ideal to me. Docs may work up to an extend when followed. Cesar A. Meaning is NOT in words, but inside people! Dr. Myles Munroe My iPad takes half the blame for misspells. > On May 18, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Personally, I don’t think any of these things will help. > > When creating a change record, the exact steps to be followed are documented. > If someone either: > a) Creates the wrong documentation, and it’s approved by CAB > b) Creates the right documentation, but someone either fat fingers or > doesn’t read the doco > Then creating these extra steps is just process inflation. > > I don’t think adding more steps or manual checks to process is the right > answer. Especially in a world where business is clamouring for more agility > and speed, rather than more bureaucracy in the name of risk management. > > If you look at the stuff coming out of CEB or Gartner, we need things like > leaner processes, cross-skilled teams better able to understand implications > across multiple towers, orchestration/automation tied to process and bunch of > other things I don’t remember off the top-of-my-head. > > Cheers > Ken > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of CESAR.ABREG0 > Sent: Monday, 19 May 2014 12:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > Verify the number of clients in collection before using to deploy a TS to it? > Verify that the dynamic collection being use contains the intended clients? > Verify that the 'all system' collection is not a target? > There could be more but a couple of that I can think of. > > Most this situations happen by human errors and inexperienced as well. I > think HP consulting did it at a bank a couple of years ago and some that > colleagues have shared with me that happened in a USA government branch. I've > been doing imaging over 10 years and I never do mandatory deployments to > populated collections, only to empty ones and I add clients manually or have > a process to do so. > > This got me thinking of steps that can be taken or be part of a TS to prevent > this type of situation up to an extend, can't never be prevented completely. > > 1. Put a step that verify DCs and other critical infrastructure systems and > have human click yes before moving forward or fail if no response. > 2. Creat web service/orchestrator to send email or a type of notification to > a group before continuing. Automated. > 3. What I've used in the past. Create an empty collection, deploy TS to it as > mandatory, add required systems manually or by script from a list. Limit who > can add systems and the type of client, like no DCs or SCCM systems. > > Cesar A. > Meaning is NOT in words, but inside people! Dr. Myles Munroe > My iPad takes half the blame for misspells. > > On May 18, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m assuming someone clicked the wrong button (i.e. “Finished”, when they > should’ve clicked “Cancel”). How does “process verification” (how do you > define this?) help? > > Cheers > Ken > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Rankin, James R > Sent: Monday, 19 May 2014 2:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > I think I may use this as an example in an article about the importance of > process verification. > > Sent from my (new!) BlackBerry, which may make me an antiques dealer, but > it's reliable as hell for email delivery :-) > From: "Andrew S. Baker" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:55:37 -0400 > To: ntsysadm<[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > Automation leads to relaxation... > > ...unless something goes horribly wrong. > > > > ASB > http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker > Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the > SMB market… > > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> wrote: > Wowzers. That's just incredible. > > On May 16, 2014 8:14 PM, "Kennedy, Jim" <[email protected]> wrote: > So SCCM sent win 7 to everything, including servers. > > http://it.emory.edu/windows7-incident/ > >
