|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Security of Equipment in poorly-secured locations.
Well I work for a very large company that runs premium data centers, while camera's are great, real security are on those sites monitoring 24/7 It is not my intent to malign Verizon, nor any other major provider, in my opinion critical infrastructure equipment must be protected, while I do not believe terrorists were involved in this particular incident, I do believe enterprising individuals taking advantage of the current political hysteria took equipment to possibly set up their own high speed network, because it was accessable. -Henry --- "Williams, Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Although a webcam is cheaper, Netbotz has a slick > rackmount camera that does > envionmentals as well. On motion detection it snaps > 5 frames off to a > central server which can be tied into a NMS. > > In this particular case, the colo being open racks > (apparently), physical > security was lacking a lot. But, just as with spam, > the measure - > counter-measure struggle goes on. "Locks only keep > honest people out." > > Jeff > > 'scuse the disclaimer below. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Bruce Campbell > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:04 PM > To: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes > Subject: Security of Equipment in poorly-secured > locations. > > > > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Jay Hennigan wrote: > > > Subject: Re: "Network Card Theft Causes Internet > Outage" > > Of course, it's just as likely that a Verizon > employee lifted them as > > a colocation customer, and either is far more > likely than terrorists. > > So, say that your equipment, sitting in a shared > facility, suffered > 'tampering' of some description. What would you do > to prevent that > happening in the first place, or failing that, to > have a positive > description to hand to the local authorities? > > To start off, what we've done with our gear thats > located in a shared > facility is to change the locks on our racks so the > facility rack key (which > everyone has a copy of) doesn't work. The > administrators of the facility > have a copy of our rack key in order to do any > remote hands work that we > need though. > > What has been suggested (but not implemented) for > our gear is to have a > network camera on the inside of each rack activated > by the racks being > opened (for some vague definition of 'opened'). > Easily defeated by lifting > the floor tiles and disconnecting the uplink cable > of course, but reasonable > peace of mind against the casual equipment lifter. > > -- > Bruce Campbell. > Sysadmin/Etc. > > > ************************************************************** > This message, including any attachments, contains > confidential information intended for a specific > individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If > you are not the intended recipient, please contact > sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all > copies. You are hereby notified that any > disclosure, copying, or distribution of this > message, or the taking of any action based on it, is > strictly prohibited. > TIAA-CREF > ************************************************************** >
|