1 In 3 Sysadmins Snoop On Colleagues 392
klubar writes "According to a a recent survey, one in three IT staff snoops on colleagues. U.S. information security company Cyber-Ark surveyed 300 senior IT professionals, and found that one-third admitted to secretly snooping, while 47 percent said they had accessed information that was not relevant to their role. Makes you wonder about the other 2 out of 3. Did they lie on the survey or really don't snoop?"
No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been a systems admin for the better part of a decade, and the only time I've ever accessed the company's assets are when it was warranted.
The same goes for user files. I'm not going to snoop through other people's files. Really, I don't care what boring files you keep, just that they don't fill up the partition they're sitting on.
Do that, and suffer my wrath.
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Ethics (Score:4, Informative)
I'm busy enough keeping our systems running and taking care of whatever issues our clients come up with. I don't have time to go snooping around for the fun of it.
Re:No Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not applicable in your situation, but in general, from my very limited experience, those most likely to snoop were those that were less competent, and snooping and such gave them a sense of power. If these less-competent, morally challenged coworkers weren't so busy snooping in everyone's personal business, maybe they could learn their jobs and help with the workload.
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
If you forbid someone something and grant them acces to it 9 out of 10 people *will* take a look. Combine that with the powertrip most people get when put in a control position it get's to good to bet let alone.
For those reasons alone I never trust any sysadmin anywhere, period.
At work or anywhere else I simply asume some admin will read my email on a bored day and I simply asume he will browse through my files the other day.
Re: (Score:3)
Like I said, the only time I care about content is when it's taking up too much space.
I did have a user's mail break once, because she kept receiving 20MB attachments and she didn't know how to delete it. There was a hard filesize limit of 2GB in the mail software. I cared a lot about that content...enough to tell he
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe I got snooping out of my system early enough, before I was an admin. I just don't even care what my users email about. I'm too busy browsing /. to care, unless something breaks.
Fixed that for you ;) Not that I'm any better, mind you.... :P
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call that snooping (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as software installs go, it isn't important from a licensing and security standpoint to identify illegal or insecure software that an employee has installed. Just as it is to identify rogue network hardware.
I don't think finding out that salesman Bob likes Britney Spears is in anyway a moral conflict. Reading through employee mail or accessing documents you have no right to (human resources for example) - now that is snooping.
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably a good assumption, but I have to admit I'm surprised the number is as high as 1 in 3, considering that getting fired for snooping on others' email or files is something that could probably cost you your entire career. Who would hire somebody as a sysop who had been caught snooping?
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Then please take the advice of a sysadmin; never *ever* hire a sysadmin.
If you can't trust your sysadmin then don't have one. Don't be in a position where you need to hire or manage one.
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
Well said, and this has always been my personal philosophy as a syadmin. If you can't trust me with your data you can't trust anybody. It's that simple. The only time I'll go into another account is to backup files in which case I'm not reading the content.
There is one more instance when I'll go into an account, when there is a legitimate need for specific content and the account owner isn't available to provide it to the employee. Again, I don't go looking at other stuff, I have something specific I'm searching for.
I've always taken my position pretty seriously, I can't believe that number is that high. Every sysadmin I know is either too busy to snoop or doesn't care enough to snoop. I can admit I was once tempted to snoop because I was dating a coworker but my damned personal ethics got in the way and I decided to trust her instead. Yeah it turns out she was lying through her teeth but there are other ways to tell if someone is lying that are far better than snooping through email which may or may not be out of context.
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to have worked. Either that or they are better at covering their tracks now.
Some of this I blame on the current school systems in place. There seems to be a lot more cheating going on and as a result not much character building. The rest I blame on poor roll models for the kids today. What with athletes almost openly using steroids and rappers thinking its cool getting busted the kids today don't have anyone to look up to. The easy way out is how it is done. A real shame that it has devolved to this.
Re:No Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The 'if they don't catch me then I'm allowed' mindset is definitely the wrong mindset to have.
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
So why do we look less favorably on the children who do it and are just not as good at it?
Just look at about every 5th story (or more) on techdirt for an example.
Think of the children? No, think of the old people acting like children.
Re:No Ethics (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No Ethics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Much more than the schools (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, if the parents watch a lot of TV, the athletes and musicians aren't the only bad role models for the kids.
Re:No Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me guess, you never check unknown files before deleting them?
Instead of a car example, I'll use the Photocopier example.
In clearing the photocopier, it's no business of yours that the thing has a jammed copy another employee's payrole, medical record, drug screen result, employee evaluation, or of a centerfold, but you see it. Is this an ethics violation?
Snooping and being exposed to data outside your job role may be what the survey is all about.
I have worked with highly classified stuff. Access is on a need to know basis. I have been exposed to other classified material that I had no need to know, and wasn't cleard for, but, I wasn't snooping. I saw just enough to identify it. With my security clearance, I treated the matter properly.
Have you ever opened an unidentified file to identify it? Was it snooping, or system maitenance?
Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose you have a high level IT staff member quit.
You go through the normal password rotation, and call it a day, but they still had access to the private keys of every server. Do you generate all new keys for every server? How do you reconcile that with the authorized_keys and known_hosts files across the network? That's a large infrastructure change.
Are there SSH key servers that allow this?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, that approach is just waiting for that one opening that allows someone inside. Security in depth, multiple layers, is the best practice.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
end_sarcasm(&slashname3)
Seriously, I agree with you. I'm just not going to change the key files on and for > 2048 systems (regardless of how I can parallelize it) when I can just change the root password, disable their account and remote accesss, remove their keys, and call it a day.
There is no such thing as perfect security, especially if the pe
Re:Scary (Score:5, Informative)
You just delete their account, or their authorized_keys file.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
for host in `cat hosts.change`
do
ssh -t $host ssh-keygen -t dsa -f id_dsa.pub
done
man ssh-keygen to see how to do this while supplying the passphrases on the command line
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you tried that on production, you just broke every automated ssh attempt between systems, and now you've got to manually edit every known_hosts file to remove the old keys. Then you've got to manually add or ssh into the hosts all over again to re-establish key trust.
Re:Scary (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And? (Score:5, Interesting)
In nearly all IT environments, either you trust your IT staff, or you have some killer PKI. Reality suggests management in the typical company wouldn't pay for or be bothered to use, so we're back to IT having super-snooping powers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because, some people aren't supposed to be seeing certain things. If you're charged with protecting everyone else's crap, it's nice to develop a bit of indifference to what's in it -- I'll guard it, but I won't look in it.
... if your admin is reading your financials, they could be using it to do a little insider trading or taking the information for other purposes.
Think of it this way
It really is a huge breach of trust for an admin to be
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly.
Ah, apathy. The cause of, and solution to, life's problems
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Sarbanes Oxley Act [wikipedia.org] makes trusting your employees illegal.
Only for Publicly Traded Companies (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of. It only applys to financial records, and is for the benefit of the shareholders. Basically, it's a complex, but theoretically hard to fake, audit trail for a companies books and other publically released financials.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:4, Funny)
Which is worse? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Which is worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is being able to flip through the HR database and seeing everyone's pay rate going to make your network more secure?
And if your users learn of your snooping, is it going to be a boon to your company when either you are fired, or employees leave rather than be snooped on?
If you are snooping and you are looking at anything more than purely technical information, you are likely going over the bounds of ethical behavior if you don't have managerial backing.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which is worse? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's great to be curious. Wondering how things work will definitely teach you.
Being a nibshit will only get you into things you shouldn't.
Of course, at one of my old jobs at an ISP, another admin (who was a nibshit) found a stash of kiddie porn in a users folder. I suppose it's a positive story, since the guy ended up going to jail.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Which is worse? (Score:5, Interesting)
As has been stated, Reading their email or watching them surf does nothing to increase the security of the network.
(on a windows network)
You wanna be curious? Fine. Go pull a listing of the 8000+ databases on the network share and check their properties to see if they are secured correctly so the HR data contained in some of them isn't available to be seen by the "everyone" group.
Go search for old, out dated data files that haven't been accessed in 5 years, or personal multimedia files sitting on your shared space because the users want to listen to music all day long but are too cheap to bring in a $6 radio.
These are some of the things a decent Admin would and should look for (among others) but that power does not justify snooping on people because you're too bored to crack open a tech manual of some sort or read a tech-site online
Re:Which is worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the reason being that I am too damn curious, except not in the "curtain twitcher" way of spying on people around you. I'm always probing the systems to see if they're happy or not, and seeing if I can tweak them to be more secure, or perform better.
I'm also happy with my illusions of them being pleasant, professional people with no hangups or problems (unless they enter the 'mates' category, in which case I either ask, or listen, or both). Saves a lot of friction, and lets me get on with what needs doing.
The biggest reason though, is that I think the world should be a better place than it is. I like my privacy, and think it's something valuable. Therefore, I show people the respect I think they should have, and politely decline to riffle through their private information. If I can't meet my responsibility for privacy, I have no business claiming the right.
There comes a point where it's asked "Who watches the watchers..".. And I'd have to say they're damn poor watchers if they can't watch themselves.
To be a sysadmin in a sizable environment, you need people on your side; you need them to trust you, and have a bit of faith in you.. Otherwise, the first big disaster that happens (and we all know they do, no matter how much you plan), you WILL be strung out to dry by everyone with an axe to grind, rather than having their support and help at the time you need it most.
Knowledge is Power... (Score:3, Funny)
I say most lied. Knowledge is power and it would be too damn tempting when you could have your finger on the company's pulse.
It would also explain the smug look. (kidding!)
They have a life (Score:5, Informative)
They probably have a life. It's pretty pathetic to have to get one's jollies snooping on others rather than actually doing something.
Re:They have a life (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They have a life (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three basic reasons why sysadmins don't snoop, in increasing order of importance:
1. It'd get you fired.
2. There isn't time in the day.
3. Basic bloody professional standards.
My institution recently underwent a long (very long) pay restructure. At about the point where things were finally settling down, the DBAs were hauled in and "reminded" that exposing or snooping through the resulting data would be a Bad Thing. My instant reaction was, "that's a fucking insult;" didn't think much of the middle-managers involved in passing on that message for not standing up for their staff. However, I think the reflection upon the personnel staff who issued the memo in the first place is that they are greasy, underhanded slime balls.
So no change there then.
Re:They have a life (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They have a life (Score:4, Insightful)
Humanity is pretty pathetic.
Re:They have a life (Score:5, Funny)
They probably have a life.
Sysadmins mostly honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes you wonder......? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't believe the hype (Score:5, Interesting)
The company that sponsored the "poll" makes products for encrypting information and compliance with SOX..
Do you think they'd release a study that DIDN'T imply your information was in jeapordy?
This is simply marketing hype, don't fall for it -- it's positioned to get executives to suspect their IT staff (in my company's case, very respectable and honest IT staff) --
1 in 3 is a completely made up number for the benefit of the company trying to SELL PRODUCT
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the major malfunction? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe it's just me, but I just don't get it...
I probably have access to more account information and networked shared space than most people, but I have no urge, need, or desire to see what's in their accounts or shares. (Beyond making sure private data is secured and there isn't pornography or other bad files out there using up all our networked drives. That's one of my monthly chores)
Only reason I'm here right now posting is because I'm in the middle of a scan. Our scans take 6-7 hours to run (with the process set to realtime priority) so about the only thing my computer is able to do is browse the web (slowly, I might add)
"Could" I snoop? Sure. "Would" I? Never. That's one of the reasons why I have this job.
I don't snoop (Score:5, Insightful)
The other 2 out of 3 (Score:3, Interesting)
Never again (Score:5, Interesting)
As for internet history or watching peoples screens while their back is turned, I would never do that *TO A PEER*. Its just a respect thing. I have definitely been told to monitor subordinates internet accesses as well as various people throughout the companies I have worked for. Ive gotten people fired for looking at facebook on work hours, but thats part of the job in some corporations. I wonder if the article is talking about peers (in the IT department) or extra-departmental persons whom you could legitimately be instructed to snoop on.
Re:Never again (Score:5, Funny)
Ah yes, the Goatse Principle.
Define Snoop. (Score:5, Insightful)
I CAN say that I have never logged into systems I wasn't allowed in, but I have
cd
and looked around.
However, I have never USED the information. I never really found anything incriminating, except TONS of porn. Hey, if you have a proxy server at work, all the porn you view is cached on the proxy. Our proxy used to show the file owner, ha ha, you are busted. I never busted anyone however, just backed up the porn to CDs and deleted it. Anyone want some old CDs?
Also, I used to work nights. If you just turned me down for a raise (poor-mouthing how bad the company is doing), do not leave your 6 month $14K bonus paperwork lying around on top of your desk. I was just delivering reports, but damn, I lost all respect for you. That is why I do not work for you anymore.
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
And if those are the same laws that apply everywhere I've worked at, then it doesn't matter if they access my files or read my email.
As long as the info is not made public, used maliciously, discussed between colleges, then it doesn't matter.
It's not what you know, it's how you use it.
Surveys... (Score:5, Interesting)
Snooping != monitoring (Score:3, Insightful)
However, as part of my duties, I was instructed to monitor some individuals and to scan for specific keywords in the logs.
assume they all do (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that anyone with both the access and the inclination will have harvested any information they want long before they hand in their notice, having them escorted out is going to be ineffective. From that position, threatening dismissal will not be an effective deterrent, especially now that it's so hard to put allegations into a job reference, unless there's a criminal case that's been proved.
Probably the only industry where safeguards come close to working is in the financial sector - where the regulations about insider trading make it hard to exploit privileged information without getting caught. However, that's a legal solution, not a technical one.
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only Their Sysadmins Know For Sure? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's surely one way to know. But who watches their sysadmin's sysadmin?
Survey Results (Score:5, Funny)
Where's the survey? (Score:3, Interesting)
Boring (Score:5, Insightful)
After you've flipped through dozens of inboxes and home directories as part of your job, you know how pointless it is to do it for fun. People are boring. They have boring mail. They have boring files.
Re:Boring ... so automate it (Score:3, Insightful)
The trick is to keep your automated scanning away from the prying eyes of all the other systadmins, who might just stumble across it while they're installing their own methods of getting one step ahead of the rest of the crowd.
They are not talking about sysadmins (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't buy that.
IEEE Computer Society (Score:5, Funny)
As a member, and having read the document, I understand that it is ethically wrong, a career limiting move, and not worth violating my promises just to satisfy my curiosity.
TFA == crap (Score:5, Insightful)
1. 300 is too small a sample. Far too small.
2. No breakdown on size of shop per admin. My SA/server ratio is 1:100, which means very little time. (I MAKE time for
3. No breakdown on 'admin' roles. If this is a mom-pop-shop admin survey, then I guess it makes sense. Cisco riders can't touch a server in my shop. Neither can the Domain/AD Admins.
4. MSNBC? Now -theres- credibility.
5. These shops obviously don't log admin activity. Someone needs to watch the watchers.
6. I am not a snitch. I don't get paid to snitch.
7. auto_home FTW, baby!
8. 1 out of 3 survey topics are meaningless.
YAIASAS(Yet another Ima a system admin story) (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I should say, from time to time you stumble across "information that (is) not relevant to (your) role," unintentionally. That can't be helped, but it is possible to not abuse the situation.
Unintentional Snoopage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I was never asked to spy on a colleague by an employer. Basically the rule was, as long as you're getting your job done and you're not breaking any laws or offending any coworkers, why should we stop you from doing as you please?
When you're root, what's snooping? (Score:4, Insightful)
As an email admin, I've routinely seen subject lines of emails that made me raise eyebrows. It was almost always in the context of looking for a missing email. Is that snooping?
Personally, I'd REALLY like to see the data. 1) What does '300 Senior IT Professionals' mean? 2) I'd REALLY like to see the survey questions asked.
I often tell people that, as a sysadmin, if you don't trust me, fire me now, and escort me out the building. I have more than enough power to do irrevocable damage to the company.
It just goes to show that... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other one is easily tricked by slanted survey questions posed by a company with a vested interest in selling security products designed to prevent snooping.
"Have you ever, in the course of your work, sought out or been exposed to confidential information which you were not supposed to see? Examples would include personal files, documents or misdirected mail."
"I don't look at anyone else's files, but as the postmaster for our domain I personally receive every bounced email and those sometimes contain information which should have been kept confidential. I don't read any of it because that would be wrong, but it does wind up in my mailbox."
"Okay, we'll put you down for 'Snoops on his coworkers' then, and I'll have the rest of our sales team take your manager out for lunch to discuss this. Thanks!"
One in three seems way too high. (Score:4, Funny)
how to find these people? (Score:4, Interesting)
The human API is very poorly documented. Is there a better way?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
when polling organizations like Gallup conduct a survey, their sample sizes are often right around 1,000, and they are modelin
Re:Time (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
At least those, including cashiers and bank tellers, who have to balance the drawer at the end of the day...
rj
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only the truly stupid pilfer straight up. The smart simply ring in a return. Or ring in a transaction, collect, and then void it, etc, etc.
Then the discrepencies don't show up in drawers cash balance but rather show up in month end inventory reconciliation which is virtually impossible to trace back to the cashier.
With more complex businesses there are more complex schemes... coupon tricks, currency r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how people keep forgetting that lesson.
Re:Bad sysadmin! (Score:5, Interesting)