I heard that in QLD hospitals there is a captive DNS portal, before
you get to the internet, which had a picture of the premier (whoever
it was then) and said, in almost these words Don't surf for porn -
can't remember the guys name, but he wasn't pretty, I imagine it had
the desired effect.
On
This is *FALSE*. Java 6 is available on leopard. Java6 64-bit is
available as a standard apple VM and is installed on all deployments
of Mac OS X that haven't explicitly turned off system update.
Java6 32-bit is available too via the soylatte project, though running
GUI-based apps on this VM
On Mar 1, 2:45 pm, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote:
This is about developer access to machines, not corporate droids in general.
Computers and the internet are very much the tools of our trade, tools that
are blunted and crippled by these security policies. The real problem
Encrypted harddrives? Sounds like a clueless exec paranoid about IP.
Almost no code IP is worth anything to an outsider. Seriously, who is
going to bother to try and figure out a competitor's code-base?
Sounds like a huge PITA to me. For a CFO/CEO, I can understand
wanting to have an
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 16:18, John Wright fortyrun...@gmail.com wrote:
This sort of thing is completely normal.
Hell, I didn't know that such a bad situation is such common, as one
of my friends works at a big company and he even is free to install
his working machine on his own (and he is not
On 27 Feb., 21:24, phil.swen...@gmail.com phil.swen...@gmail.com
wrote:
So I'm curious - do companies like Google, Oracle, Microsoft, Intel
have policies like this?
As a consultant, I've worked with big companies in the past, and they
often constrain their employee's PCs/laptops heavily.
I think the most indefensible policy I've seen is to lock down the
appearance of machines. So XP with the windows classic theme enforced and
background unchangeable.
There's clearly no security benefit in this, and I'd be very surprised if
there had every been a case of someone using an
In my last permanent job (I've been back freelance for the last two
years) I used to work for a large American oursourcing company which
is now part of HP and most of the things you have listed chime with my
experience. We weren't completely bolted down - could install software
and frequently did
That's all very well for, dare I say, the likes of us who deal
intimately on a daily basis with all sorts of technologies at all
sorts of levels. We understand the dangers that come with unfettered
access - at least from a technical perspective - and (hopefully) act
accordingly.
Your average
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 15:06, Phil p...@haigh-family.com wrote:
Personally I'm inclined to side with them - non IT-Savvy people do
need protecting from themselves (once took a call from somebody
complaining he couldn't access the company intranet from his WiFi
enabled laptop, turned out he was
This is about developer access to machines, not corporate droids in general.
Computers and the internet are very much the tools of our trade, tools that
are blunted and crippled by these security policies. The real problem is
not the policies themselves, but their indiscriminate application.
You are right but this is a hard sell in many corporations. Many companies
do not have the manpower or strong enough IT people to implement different
sets of rules and so it is easier to dictate policy and make everyone follow
it.
Luckily I work somewhere where I can use whatever tool I find best
I believe the main problem is that very few have actually taken the time to
sit down and discuss what the needs are, what the purpose is, how to measure
if the solution is aligned with the needs and the risks associated with
strictness vs. nonstrictness.
I fully understand the difficulty in
The need and purpose for many of these decisions is to avoid legal trouble.
It is hard to argue with management when lawyers are telling them what they
should do to avoid legal issues. There is no flexibility when decisions are
based on that kind of information. I've known people using Notepad to
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Robert Casto casto.rob...@gmail.com wrote:
The need and purpose for many of these decisions is to avoid legal trouble.
It is hard to argue with management when lawyers are telling them what they
should do to avoid legal issues. There is no flexibility when
A lack of trust is one part of it, but essentially the company is trying to
protect itself. Even the best employees will make mistakes sometimes. I
think they try to be overly protective though, perhaps with good cause but
it stifles productivity. I tend to work for smaller companies because they
A few of these are reasonable. Most are ridiculous.
What they are doing is instilling a blanket policy across all
employees, no matter the job function. They are treating you like a
call center employee. You are a software developer (I assume), you
shouldn't be treated like a dumbass. And fact
but should devs have privileges over non devs? id be a little upset with
that. Where i work, there are some restricted URL's, but devs are free to
install whatever OS - but we have to manage them on our own. Those who
install windows have to be in the domain and install AV (and causes build
time
Most of these measures have to do with the amount of risk that a company is
willing to put up with. Having worked for pharmaceutical companies and
defense contractors, I can attest to the fact that they have a certain
degree of justifiable paranoia when it comes to security.
Most of these types
josef newton wrote:
Banning IM and Skype are silly. Do they ban cell phones/SMS? Same
thing really.
I don't think IM and cell phones are the same. IM and Skype are using
company infrastructure - packets going out come from the company (not a
personal phone), and so the company may be
nope, just a pretty big enterprise software company. I don't think I
should mention the name...
You should realise, if you are really worried about the anonymity of the
company, that it took a single Google search and viewing a couple of pages to
find the name of it.
Just in case you weren't
This sort of thing is completely normal.
Sure, some enlightened companies may have laxer policies such as
allowing Macs.
But of your list what would you remove?
XP is now becoming a hardened OS for enterprises because of the effort
that has gone into making it secure. Instant Messaging outside
Do you work for a bank?
We had everything you mention at the insurance company I worked at.
On Feb 28, 7:24 am, phil.swen...@gmail.com phil.swen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am curious... I work for a large software vendor and our policies
are:
-windows only (XP)
-outside IM is banned (we have
nope, just a pretty big enterprise software company. I don't think I
should mention the name...
On Feb 27, 5:37 pm, Steven Herod steven.he...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you work for a bank?
We had everything you mention at the insurance company I worked at.
On Feb 28, 7:24 am,
It's all a mix of those depending on where you go. Australian
government lock their web and machines down pretty tightly. And they
arn't used to being development shops. I had to get a special auth to
install software.
Symantec was interesting. While security was high, and Symantec Anti-
25 matches
Mail list logo
