Reply to post: I actually did the reverse once..

Staff sacked after security sees 'suspect surfer' script of shame

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

I actually did the reverse once..

Once upon a time I worked for a then rather well known provider, and we were the provider for a very large bit of infrastructure which shall remain nameless.

During the build, a requirement was mooted that we ought to log all network traffic. This would have demanded large amounts of storage which was not really planned or budgeted for, so the search was on for an argument that would get that demand off the table (also because it would add a lot of hassle to a project that was already on tight timescales as it was). I decided to run some test logs, just to see what we could be facing, and what I got back from one of the participating parties was, er, worthy of further investigation because it was dodgy as heck.

Now I'm not one to cry wolf without some further (careful) investigating, and so it emerged there was a legitimate reason for the traffic - that specific party was busy with research (at least, that's what I was told, but the speed & duration of the visits corroborated the stated automated nature of the effort).

The upshot was that I had some dumps of these logs with me for the next project meeting, and before we started I had a quiet word with the big cheese of the project who notably blanched when noting some of the URLs on the printout. We quietly agreed that logging traffic would best not fall under our responsibility, but would, instead, remain the purview of each participating party "to protect confidentiality", and so it was suggested and agreed in the meeting that followed.

Sometimes it's just a matter of finding the right data :).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019