Been there
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jhansonxi Jul 24, 2008 7:22 AM EDT |
I can empathize with Terry. Being stuck in a department controlled by incompetence is no fun. It's interesting how they perceive his out-of-band connection as an illegal back-door. |
| jdixon Jul 24, 2008 7:35 AM EDT |
> It's interesting how they perceive his out-of-band connection as an illegal back-door. Agreed. Such connections to allow remote access are a standard feature on most networks I've seen. Now, a proper VPN connection to the network is a better solution, but that's not always and option and it doesn't help when a network link goes down and you need to check the status of the router at the remote end. |
| vainrveenr Jul 25, 2008 9:23 AM EDT |
...... and current news of the extent of Terry efforts to establish back-door remote access (legal?/illegal?) comes from stories such as the recent 'Accused SF Tech-Hijacker May Have Hidden 100's of Modems' published in the local news, http://www.kcbs.com/Pricey-Search-for-Hidden-SF-Modems/26610...
An excerpt of this piece reveals a high-end estimate of the number of remore-access modems:Quoting:According to authorities, Terry Childs may have installed as many as 1,100 modems around the city that he could have access to, in order to create more trouble.If the number of actual modems found really does approach this high-end estimate, then even given the architectural design of San Fran's large network, this seems like just too many remote access devices for "sufficient" effective remote management. That half-million dollar pricetag on the search for all these devices (and tracing any damage Terry may have caused) could just by itself pay for a number of fulltime sysadmins! |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 26, 2008 2:29 AM EDT |
Funny thing: A few days after Childs gave the keys back to the mayor, the city accidentally leaked hunderds of usernames and passwords for the network. They were filed in the court case against Childs and weren't filed sealed or redacted. Neatly proving Childs' point that the other city network admins are incompetent and not to be trusted with the keys to his network. http://techdirt.com/articles/20080725/1740491799.shtml |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 26, 2008 7:17 AM EDT |
> Neatly proving Childs' point that the other city network admins are incompetent and not to be trusted with the keys to his network. Government school to government employment. I detect a pattern here... |
| gus3 Jul 26, 2008 9:29 AM EDT |
"Neatly proving Childs' point that the other city network admins are incompetent and not to be trusted with the keys to his network." Oh? Is he selling bandwidth to the city of San Francisco on his privately-owned network? |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 27, 2008 6:02 AM EDT |
No :-) Childs considered the network to be "his". It was his baby. He designed and built it and kept it running smoothly forever. Even when he was in jail :-) |
| gus3 Jul 27, 2008 4:49 PM EDT |
Yeah, that's what I thought. The city of San Francisco paid for that network, and they paid him to build it, probably under some kind of written agreement. "Breach of contract" is the least of the accusations they should bring to court. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!