"Possible"? No degree of checks and balances makes such things not possible. It's about reducing likelihoods.
And checks and balances require people adhere to them. -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Melvin Backus > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 12:05 PM > To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > True, but if that result is possible, the process has insufficient checks and balances. > > -- > There are 10 kinds of people in the world... > those who understand binary and those who don't. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Steven M. Caesare > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:18 AM > To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > Indeed, but that's a result, not a root cause. > > -sc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com on behalf of Melvin Backus > Sent: Mon 5/19/2014 10:05 AM > To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > I think it can safely be assumed (yes I know) that a deployment server should never overwrite itself as part of a > deployment. > > -- > There are 10 kinds of people in the world... > those who understand binary and those who don't. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Steven M. Caesare > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 9:15 AM > To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > How does one know if process refinement is necessary when you don't know the root cause of the issue (yet)? > > -sc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com on behalf of Ken Schaefer > Sent: Sun 5/18/2014 10:17 PM > To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > 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: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of CESAR.ABREG0 > Sent: Monday, 19 May 2014 12:07 PM > To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > 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 <k...@kj.net.au<mailto:k...@kj.net.au>> 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: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> > [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Rankin, James R > Sent: Monday, 19 May 2014 2:59 AM > To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com> > 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" <asbz...@gmail.com<mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>> > Sender: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> > Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:55:37 -0400 > To: ntsysadm<ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ntsys...@lists.myitforum.co m>> > ReplyTo: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com> > 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<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 <rich...@gmail.com<mailto:rich...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Wowzers. That's just incredible. > On May 16, 2014 8:14 PM, "Kennedy, Jim" <kennedy...@elyriaschools.org<mailto:kennedy...@elyriaschools.org>> > wrote: > So SCCM sent win 7 to everything, including servers. > > http://it.emory.edu/windows7-incident/ > > > > > > > > >
