Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Security of Equipment in poorly-secured locations.

  • From: Henry Linneweh
  • Date: Tue May 04 22:42:12 2004

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" <jwilliams3@tiaa-cref.org> 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: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] 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
>
**************************************************************
> 





Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.