Some of you may have read my recent rant about trustee idiocy. Here's another prime example - the following conversation took place over a couple of weeks via e-mail, but you get the idea.
T is a trustee of the organisation. This does not necessarily mean she deserves any prestige, but she feels terribly important.
R is T's sister's boyfriend or something along those lines. He 'knows about computers'.
T and R like to cc each other when they e-mail me, so both of them can see what an idiot I am.
T: The internet is broken. I need to connect to the office and I can't.
Me: Umm, ok. Can you describe the problem?
T: I can't get on to the VPN.
Me: Ok, can you describe your network at home? Do you use wireless?
(Goes through the usual testing of internet connections, checking the VPN server logs etc)
R: Look, I set up this network at T's house and I know it works. Don't you dare change it.
Me: Really, I think there might be something wrong with the way your network is set up.
R: OK fine, change whatever you want but I know it's set up right. Whatever you do, I want to know about it so I can change it back when you f*ck it up.
Me: Umm, ok. Well, I think your network at home is using the same subnet as our one at work, so routing won't work properly.
Bear in mind R is ccing T on all of this, and T in turn is complaining to my boss about my incompetence
R: The IP here is 192.168.0.1. I REALLY doubt it's conflicting with your network (smug know-it-all grin)
Me: (getting really tired of this crap, goes into tech mode to make him shut up) OK that's what I thought, we use 192.168.0.0/24 here so your network at home won't route properly to ours. All our other VPN users have 192.168.1.0/24 and it works fine. I mention things like CIDR, subnetting, whatever, just to get him to admit he knows nothing.
A couple of days pass.
T: Right, R says he'll try to do what you said but he doesn't think it'll work. I'm away for a few days but he has my password so he can sort it out.
Me: Wait, what?
Background story: six months earlier, the company needed an IT/acceptable use policy. I wrote it, trustees didn't understand it but they signed it anyway *
Me: You gave him your password?
T: Yeah, so he can fix my network.
Me: Opens up Active Directory Users and Computers, finds T's account, right-click, Disable Account. I'm terribly sorry, but that violates our IT policy. As you're the trustee in charge of overseeing policies, I'd expect you to know this. I have removed your VPN access rights.
The grin on my face was so big you could see it from the moon.
(* Actually, I wrote the policy, submitted it to the board, they deleted most of it, copied-and-pasted verbatim a load of text from a 'things you should include when writing IT policies' document from about.com, then passed that. It was incoherent gibberish, but the bit about passwords was still in it.)
T is a trustee of the organisation. This does not necessarily mean she deserves any prestige, but she feels terribly important.
R is T's sister's boyfriend or something along those lines. He 'knows about computers'.
T and R like to cc each other when they e-mail me, so both of them can see what an idiot I am.
T: The internet is broken. I need to connect to the office and I can't.
Me: Umm, ok. Can you describe the problem?
T: I can't get on to the VPN.
Me: Ok, can you describe your network at home? Do you use wireless?
(Goes through the usual testing of internet connections, checking the VPN server logs etc)
R: Look, I set up this network at T's house and I know it works. Don't you dare change it.
Me: Really, I think there might be something wrong with the way your network is set up.
R: OK fine, change whatever you want but I know it's set up right. Whatever you do, I want to know about it so I can change it back when you f*ck it up.
Me: Umm, ok. Well, I think your network at home is using the same subnet as our one at work, so routing won't work properly.
Bear in mind R is ccing T on all of this, and T in turn is complaining to my boss about my incompetence
R: The IP here is 192.168.0.1. I REALLY doubt it's conflicting with your network (smug know-it-all grin)
Me: (getting really tired of this crap, goes into tech mode to make him shut up) OK that's what I thought, we use 192.168.0.0/24 here so your network at home won't route properly to ours. All our other VPN users have 192.168.1.0/24 and it works fine. I mention things like CIDR, subnetting, whatever, just to get him to admit he knows nothing.
A couple of days pass.
T: Right, R says he'll try to do what you said but he doesn't think it'll work. I'm away for a few days but he has my password so he can sort it out.
Me: Wait, what?
Background story: six months earlier, the company needed an IT/acceptable use policy. I wrote it, trustees didn't understand it but they signed it anyway *
Me: You gave him your password?
T: Yeah, so he can fix my network.
Me: Opens up Active Directory Users and Computers, finds T's account, right-click, Disable Account. I'm terribly sorry, but that violates our IT policy. As you're the trustee in charge of overseeing policies, I'd expect you to know this. I have removed your VPN access rights.
The grin on my face was so big you could see it from the moon.
(* Actually, I wrote the policy, submitted it to the board, they deleted most of it, copied-and-pasted verbatim a load of text from a 'things you should include when writing IT policies' document from about.com, then passed that. It was incoherent gibberish, but the bit about passwords was still in it.)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 06:21 pm (UTC)Although I'll miss the "stupid trustee" stories, it can't be good for your internal organs or brainmeats
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 11:36 pm (UTC)If only they hadn't told me what he uses his second computer for, I wouldn't've felt so dirty when I had to touch it.
*shudders*
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:40 pm (UTC)I constantly get people trying to catch me out, asking, "come on, you can tell me - when you're bored, you read our e-mails, don't you?". Seriously, I don't, because a) I'm not supposed to, b) I really don't care, and c) the only way for me to do so is to check through the journalling mailbox, which is supposed to be tamper-proof. You think I want to lose my job from being a bit nosey and bored?
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 08:24 pm (UTC)Also, you could've edited the comment until you replied to it - that locks it.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 08:29 pm (UTC)Oh well, I'll know for next time :) Assumed lj-user because of lj-cut.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 08:33 pm (UTC)IIRC, the reason it's '<lj user=...>' is because <lj-user=...> isn't a valid XML/SGML tag, since you can't apply a parameter to the tag name, you need to specify an attribute and <lj-user user=...> looked too clunky.
I know there's no reason to make it properly valid since it's all parsed out, but back in the day they wanted to do things 'the right way'. Hence no adverts, no javascript, and so on.
Of course, times change. :o)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:50 pm (UTC)Only if I want to get more bored.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-24 02:16 am (UTC)At my place, anyone sharing passwords for ANY reason is grounds for a writeup, or worse, as it's a violation of the gaming compact the tribe has with the state. The look on the bosses face the last time someone did that was priceless, and brought me to smile.
We either schedule time for the executives or other big wigs, or (usually with their permission as a courtesy) change their passwords if we really need to use their accounts for any reason..
no subject
Date: 2008-02-24 11:28 pm (UTC)Isn't it cute when users think we really give a shit about how totally shitfaced they got on the weekend or who their second cousin is sleeping around with. The times when I have had to read through emails (never for fun; but trying to restore a particular email, or this one patch of really stupid mail scanning a company had, etc) the snippets I've gleaned have been mundane and uninteresting.
I mean yeah, ultimately it's not worth getting into trouble for (like the one manager who thought he'd read a 'Confidential' mail in someone else's mailfile they'd been given access to, only it sent a read confirmation back to the sender from the snooping user's name - whoops, someone went straight from the manager's office and out the front door) and my personal morals stop me from even glancing at obvious chain letters that have something that looks vaguely amusing or cute or whatever. But in reality the majority of personal mail is so incredibly dull I avoid reading it anyway.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-25 07:29 pm (UTC)No, when I'm bored, I brush up on the BofH archives.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-24 10:56 am (UTC)Anything else is incredibly unprofessional and exposes you to a schwag of liability.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:36 pm (UTC)There's a lot of sensitive/departmental information that shouldn't be shared, and more often than not, there's simply no need to swap passwords. If I need someone to type in their password I'll ask them to do it. It's very rare for me to ask for a password, and if I catch people sharing them they get a severe bollocking from yours truly.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-24 11:34 pm (UTC)But no. Security is 'stupid'.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 06:58 pm (UTC)Do let us know how this turns out.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:42 pm (UTC)I am the law.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-24 06:54 am (UTC)Policy can be a real pain in the arse, but damn if it isn't useful (and satisfying!) every now and then.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-25 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-25 07:26 pm (UTC)Where I work, we got tired of that, and we wanted to be able to chop things up a bit more, so we went to a 10.x.x.x network....