this is supposed to be more secure because it costs money
It makes blaming someone really easy though and that's all that matters in a corporate world.
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
this is supposed to be more secure because it costs money
It makes blaming someone really easy though and that's all that matters in a corporate world.
This is legitimately it. The same reason corporations often pay for Linux (e.g. RHEL)—the people in charge want to be able to pick up a phone and harass someone until they fix their problem. They simply can't fathom any alternative approach to managing dependencies.
Not just pick up the phone and harass someone but to also have someone to press a lawsuit against if things go really wrong. With free software the liability typically ends at the user which means all they can do is fire the employee and eat the loss. Suppose now corporate paid for it, well now there is a contract and a party that can be sued.
As if the Eulas don’t make it all arbitration?
What software company allows liability for mistakes in a EULA?
The greentext reminds me of this FAQ entry: https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#faq-vendor
A.9.17 As one of our existing software vendors, can you just fill in this questionnaire for us?
We periodically receive requests like this, from organisations which have apparently sent out a form letter to everyone listed in their big spreadsheet of ‘software vendors’ requiring them all to answer some long list of questions […]
We don't make a habit of responding in full to these questionnaires, because we are not a software vendor.
A software vendor is a company to which you are paying lots of money in return for some software. They know who you are, and they know you're paying them money; so they have an incentive to fill in your forms and questionnaires [...] because they want to keep being paid.
[...]
If you work for an organisation which you think might be at risk of making this mistake, we urge you to reorganise your list of software suppliers so that it clearly distinguishes paid vendors who know about you from free software developers who don't have any idea who you are. Then, only send out these mass mailings to the former.
This has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with liability.
You can't really sue an open source project using a proper license, they disclaim any liability or warranty, meaning the buck stops with you.
If you hire a software development firm and pay for them to build software for you, you will have a different license, the software company can just repackage open source software into their own UI and branding, take the money and declare bankruptcy if their customers try to sue them.
The customers are mostly happy, they get to tick the box that they have a support contract for the software and a company is liable if shit hits the fan. The software development company is happy, they get money for doing very little actual work.
The open source project probably doesn't know about the abuse of the license and thus mostly doesn't care.
At one place I worked we couldn't use eclipse licensed things because the license mentioned indemnification or something. I don't really understand what that meant because I think some other licenses mentioned it too. Plus literally all of us used Eclipse IDE.
It's "more secure" because there's a specific company to blame when it goes wrong.
Security through liability
The bigger you get the more this is a thing actually.
Yeah, i worked briefly at multinational japanese motor company and this was their logic. I was hired as a software developer contractor and HQ had rules stating, no open source software, no free software and the one that puzzled me the most no in house executables (WHY THE FUCK DID THEY HIRE ME?)
How were you supposed to test your software if you weren't allowed to create an executable?
My org told me “you can’t install open source software”
Everyone uses Firefox
I just want OpenShell
Had that discussion before. Was attacked because I use a f&os lib from GitHub instead of a paid and licensed one, the latter somehow meaning it's error free. Spoiler alert: it wasn't. Or at least their usage wasn't.
Worked for a company that had a similar policy against free software, but simultaneously encouraged employees to use open-source software to save money. I don't think upper management was talking to the IT department.
There is an entire sub-industry and probably thousands of jobs being propped up by this stupid way of thinking about software. I can't be mad at it because it pays the bills for a few of my friends...
I could really see companies just fork open source and give it a tweak like UI or new switches...
Terrible.
At one point my company made us buy Eclipse from a vendor because free software was not allowed. It had no tweaks or support, just out of date Eclipse that I had to wait for purchasing to get
Anon works for my company? Because they did exactly this with the same excuse.
Yeesh. I would find a new job immediately. Absolutely unhinged behavior.
My previous employer was bought by a huge company. I liked it in the small company, because I had freedom to do what was needed without much questions, and I was trusted to make the relevant decisions and purchases. Kind of a "Costs be damned, get it done in a reasonable amount of time" kind of arrangement.
When we came under the big corpo, we got an email instructing us to list all the software we used/needed, so that it could be added to the whitelist that big corpo worked with. Anything not in the whitelist simply couldn't run.
I gave them the list, but spoke to my on-shore It guy that out in the field we often needed to install something that we didn't need before on short notice, and waiting for a ticket to be resolved for an administrative matter had the potential to stop production.
They found it easier just to make an exception for my work PC. I just had to promise not to VPN in to the office while running "weird" stuff, otherwise the higher ups would get upset.
That's fine. I had my own VPN for only the stuff I needed anyway. I VPNed into offshore production systems on a daily basis. I needed to VPN I to the office once or twice. Plus in my book, the "main" VPN client is what I consider weird software. My shit was basically a wrapper around openvpn.
EDIT: To be fair, the huge corpo employer wasn't unreasonable. It was just so large with so many employees that strct security implementations were needed for IT to have some sort of control. I was technically also IT, but I only dealt with field equipment, so that IT could focus on "normal" stuff. They trusted me to handle my end, they handled theirs, and we usually cooperated fairly well when our systems "met".
"we need this NOW"
> Package I install is immediately black listed by IT, I submit a high priority ticket and I don't hear from them for days, maybe weeks
Like what the fuck can I do
"Yes, but does one of the existing whitelisted executables fulfill the same function?"
"Have you tried using MS Excel instead?"
*Looks at industrial robotics with a proprietary TPU that needs a firmware update.*
"Yes"
My last boss got rid of the pfSense routers because "open source is not secure". I argued that pfSense has been vetted over and over and over again. Nope. "Everyone can see the source code." That's the fucking point!
TBF, pfSense isn't the fastest routing, but at our small company is was more than sufficient.
For a small to medium sized business pfsense is the only solution that makes sense. The only requirement is that you have a actual sysadmin on staff and not a vendor jockey.
Honestly, a policy of "no free-of-charge software installed on workstations except FOSS" might improve security a bit and probably without doing all that much damage to the day-to-day workings of the company.
For that matter, if my employer instituted a policy of "no software except FOSS", my own particular job probably would be a surprisingly small adjustment. As long as they were willing to do the work to set up infrastructure and/or let us switch to FOSS alternatives that require third-party server providers as necessary. About all I can think of that's installed on my work machine that's proprietary is:
Beyond that, I honestly can't think specifically of anything else proprietary installed on my work machine. My personal computers have far less proprietary software installed than the above list.
Everyday my misnathropy is justified
I majored in Anthropology in college. I should have done Misanthropology.
You did; just need to apply it.
I'll try that. Fuck you.
They grow up so fast sheds tear
Print the fucking t-shirt man. I'll buy one for every day of the week.
It's not more secure, it's so they can offload blame and have people to sue if/when something ugly happens. Liability control, essentially.
We had to pay for fucking Docker container licenses at my last job because we needed an escalation to the vendor in case our SMEs couldnt handle things (they could), and so we had a vendor to blame if something out of our control happened. And that happened: we sued Mirantis when shit broke.
Hey PS: search engines do return a result for a suit against that company so potential self-doxxing territory (but maybe you’re open in your comment history IDK)
(Don’t have a PACER login so couldn’t tell what was up with the suit that came back when I checked this morn, also could’ve been an unrelated suit)
“If you’re not paying for the product, then you are the product.”
The phrase has its uses, but shit like this is what happens when it's taken to the extreme.
Don't forget your new 32 character/symbol/number/nordic rune passwords that will need to be changed every 17 days.
I hate sites that make me constantly change passwords. it's been shown time and time again that making users change passwords often decreases security by a pretty large factor, and yet a lot of sites still do it
Our workplace did that. You had to change every month and you weren't allowed to just add a digit. It meant that people started writing their passwords on post-its stuck to the monitor.
Mind you, back in the 90s your password was the same as your username. It was very handy, because if someone went home leaving a document locked, you could just log in and unlock it. Our first "proper" IT professional was horrified.
Oh you gonna love those new directives for SSL certificates we got cooking!
I am becoming increasingly more appreciative of the fact that I have root access to "my" company provided work device.
My boss went so far as to buy Macs because we have "special needs" (we don't) because otherwise we'd be forced to use the corporate locked down crap. I'm not a big fan of macos (prefer Linux), but root access sure is nice.
Vim? Oh wow. I'd be looking into a USB Keyboard that types the entire source code of vim into the machine, assuming there isn't an easier option.
Nice. My response is my 2-week's notice.