home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Usenet 1994 October
/
usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicoctober1994disk2.iso
/
unix
/
volume25
/
policy
/
part03
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-02-28
|
50KB
|
1,277 lines
Newsgroups: comp.sources.unix
From: bbh@mtek.mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: v25i139: policy V2 - tools for providing interactive timeshare policies, Part03/03
Sender: unix-sources-moderator@pa.dec.com
Approved: vixie@pa.dec.com
Submitted-By: bbh@mtek.mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Posting-Number: Volume 25, Issue 139
Archive-Name: policy/part03
Return-Path: oliveb!mtek!nosun.West.Sun.COM!bbh
Received: by cognition.pa.dec.com; id AA04521; Tue, 25 Feb 92 06:53:25 -0800
Received: by uucp-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA09068; Tue, 25 Feb 92 06:53:14 -0800
Received: by oliveb.ATC.OLIVETTI.COM (smail2.5)
id AA08062; 25 Feb 92 06:52:46 PST (Tue)
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by sun.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA03211; Tue, 25 Feb 92 06:27:16 PST
Received: from nosun.West.Sun.COM by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA12979; Tue, 25 Feb 92 06:27:00 PST
Received: from mtek.UUCP by nosun.West.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1-900117)
id AA00558; Tue, 25 Feb 92 06:26:51 PST
Received: by mtek.mtek.com (Smail2.5+apb/mje900117)
id AA10558; Tue, 25 Feb 92 04:07:34 PST
Subject: Policy Package, part 3 of 3
To: vixie (Paul Vixie)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 4:07:30 PST
Reply-To: policy@mtek.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52]
Message-Id: <9202250407.AA10558@mtek.mtek.com>
From: bbh@mtek.mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
#! /bin/sh
# This is a shell archive. Remove anything before this line, then unpack
# it by saving it into a file and typing "sh file". To overwrite existing
# files, type "sh file -c". You can also feed this as standard input via
# unshar, or by typing "sh <file", e.g.. If this archive is complete, you
# will see the following message at the end:
# "End of archive 3 (of 3)."
# Contents: misc/art.rt misc/art.ur2
# Wrapped by policy@mtek.com on Tue Feb 18 20:42:40 1992
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/ucb ; export PATH
if test -f 'misc/art.rt' -a "${1}" != "-c" ; then
echo shar: Will not clobber existing file \"'misc/art.rt'\"
else
echo shar: Extracting \"'misc/art.rt'\" \(29944 characters\)
sed "s/^X//" >'misc/art.rt' <<'END_OF_FILE'
X
X
X
X - 1 -
X
X
X
X $Id: art.rt.N,v 5.3.2.5 91/09/03 09:55:27 policy USENET $
X
X The following was first published in ROOT magazine, Volume
X 1, Number 4 and 5
X
X Copyright 1989 Bjorn Satdeva.
X
X Permission granted to distribute this article for nonprofit
X purposes, as long as this header and copyright notice are
X kept intact.
X
X On the Human Aspect of UNIX
X System Management
X
X by Bjorn Satdeva
X
X Have you ever stopped for a moment, and thought about what
X the job as system administrator really is about? Try to look
X past the backups done last night, and the new user account
X which was created this morning. What is the real purpose
X behind the work which is done by the system administrator
X every day?
X
X Traditionally, the system administration job is described in
X terms of technology and programming. But the core of system
X administration is really about something completely
X different. It can actually be described with just three
X letters: ``TLC''. Tender Loving Care.
X
X The work of a responsible system manager is to support the
X users on his or her systems, to assist the management in
X setting policies, and to help everybody to decide the future
X needs of the site. All too often, a system administrator
X will say that his job is to take care of such and such a
X system. In my opinion, that is only a part of the truth.
X
X The real job is to care for a number of fellow human beings,
X which in one way or another are dependent on the computer
X system which the administrator has been entrusted to
X maintain. And in this process, the UNIX system manager will
X become known as a hard worker, always ready to do what is
X necessary to keep the system running. Right?
X
X No. Wrong. Dead wrong! Unfortunately, in the world of
X realities, this is not usually the case. The system manager
X will only be visible to the world outside the computer room
X when something goes wrong. In this context, the question is
X how can he avoid being the guest of honor at the ``necktie
X party'' which inevitably follows a major system crash? In
X fact, there is a lot which can be done through establishing
X a good rapport with both the management and user community
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 2 -
X
X
X
X within the system manager's company. And good rapport
X requires lots of ``TLC''.
X
X Some of the ways the UNIX system manager can provide this is
X by always being ready to listen to and act on the problems
X in the user community, and by clearly communicating
X situations and requirements which may affect the operation
X of the system to the company management. Last but certainly
X not least, he must provide documentation. Not necessarily
X documentation in technical terms, but rather easily
X understandable and clear statements of the policies and
X procedures which have been established to govern the site.
X
X Dealing With People
X
X The purpose of this article is to show some of the ways a
X UNIX system manager can improve his relationships with both
X the management and the user community at his site. It will
X be presented in two sections. First, we will discuss the
X system administrator's relationships with his management,
X and then, in our second article, with the user community at
X large.
X
X We will explore these relationships in this sequence, not
X because the management is a more important factor than the
X users, but because this is the sequence in which these
X relationships must be established. Any attempt to build
X strong relations to the user group of a system can easily be
X undermined by a few negative management individuals. It is
X therefore extremely important for company management to be
X totally in alignment with the goals of the system
X administrator.
X
X What follows is a story of how these solid human
X relationships can be established.
X
X Linda is the UNIX system manager at Buildmore Technologies,
X Inc. This company is, in many ways, a typical UNIX site.
X It has a large number of UNIX systems which are used mostly
X by the engineering departments, while other company
X functions such as accounting, payroll, and word processing
X are done on non-UNIX systems.
X
X Linda has the responsibility for the administration of the
X UNIX systems. She has two system administrators and three
X System Operators to do the daily work. Linda is reporting
X to Dave, the MIS manager, who knows nothing about UNIX and
X therefore, is totally dependent.
X
X Linda has only been with Buildmore Technologies, Inc. for a
X few months. When she started, the UNIX systems were in a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 3 -
X
X
X
X state of extreme chaos with just a single system
X administrator trying to keep the systems working. What he
X was able to do could hardly be characterized as proper
X ``administration''; fire fighting comes to mind as a much
X better description.
X
X The situation was further aggravated because Dave considered
X UNIX to be a maverick system which was hopeless to
X administer, and many of the users were convinced that the
X MIS UNIX support was the last place in the world they could
X expect any real help with their system problems.
X
X This is the story behind some of the the things Linda did to
X change the UNIX site at Buildmore Technologies from total
X chaos to being a well administered and productive site.
X
X Analyze the Situation
X
X Linda very soon realized that if she was going to have any
X kind of success in cleaning up the UNIX system problems at
X Buildmore, she would definitely need the full support of her
X MIS Manager, Dave. Therefore, she spent the first weeks in
X her new position getting the situation in the Data Center
X under some kind of control, and then quickly started
X outlining some of the long term programs which had to be
X undertaken to create a secure and properly administered
X site. She immediately began presenting and communicating
X those needs to Dave.
X
X Because Dave knew so little about UNIX, it was part of
X Linda's responsibilities to inform and educate him about
X what needed to be done at Buildmore Technologies, Inc. She
X did that by writing a number of memos, outlining the
X strengths and weaknesses of UNIX in a number of areas such
X as backup and security. She further outlined some
X suggestions and possible solutions in these areas.
X
X In just a few months, Linda and Dave were able to come to an
X understanding and an agreement on the requirements for their
X site, and a strategy for how the site should be administered
X began to emerge. Linda began writing a number of documents
X which, in an official manner, described how the UNIX site
X would be run. The first document she wrote was a Site
X Policy.
X
X Getting It In Writing
X
X Before we continue, perhaps we should define a ``Site
X Policy''. The Site Policy is the ``Constitution'' for the
X site. It must describe in general and nontechnical terms the
X policies which both the system administrator and the users
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 4 -
X
X
X
X must follow when using the equipment and software at the
X site.
X
X It allows the top management to state the policies governing
X the site in general terms, and provides the system
X administrator with a platform upon which more specific
X documents can be built. Remember, the purpose of this Site
X Policy is not to establish a mindless bureaucracy, but to
X create a foundation on which the UNIX system manager can
X build the correct system administration guidelines.
X
X Linda's draft was written in exactly that manner. Here are
X some of the topics it covered:
X
X +o Statement of purpose for the site
X
X A very general description of how backups should be
X done. Linda decided that each machine should be backed
X up fully once a week, and incrementally on a daily
X basis. She also described how many generations of
X backup would be kept, and what generation of backups
X should be kept offsite.
X
X +o Knowing that site documentation and planning is very
X important, but would take more time than she had for
X her initial proposals, Linda requested that a Disaster
X Recovery Plan and a Security Plan should be written as
X soon as possible. She further stated that sufficient
X documentation describing the daily operations of the
X site be properly maintained.
X
X +o And finally, she described in general terms her
X intentions to create a Security Plan for the site,
X which included proper password protections, management
X of dial-up lines, root permission access, and an
X overall security audit.
X
X Because of the many constructive and well-planned memos,
X meetings and discussions which Linda encouraged with Dave,
X she was able to easily write the Site Policy and Dave was
X able to have the CEO of Buildmore Technologies sign off on
X the document after just a few minor changes to Linda's
X original draft. Buildmore Technologies, Inc. now had an
X official Site Policy in place for its UNIX machines, and
X Linda could continue with the task of further improving the
X administration, operation, and documentation of their UNIX
X sites.
X
X Security Plan
X
X With the Site Policy in place, it was time for Linda to
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 5 -
X
X
X
X start to work on the other documents which her original Site
X Policy stated would be required for their system. This
X definitely included the development of a well thought-out
X Security Plan for their system.
X
X General system security had not been taken very seriously
X before the Fall of 1988, when the Internet Worm crippled
X hundred of UNIX systems and received a great deal of
X publicity. Since that event, many sites began at least
X paying lip service to the type of system security which
X Linda knew to be essential to protecting their UNIX site.
X
X Linda knew that since Buildmore Technologies was connected
X directly to both Internet and to UUCP, she would have to pay
X special attention to security. A large amount of electronic
X mail was exchanged over their system every day through these
X connections.
X
X In her outline for the site security requirements, and how
X it would be implemented in their ``Security Plan'', she
X included some of the following important factors:
X
X +o All user accounts would be required to have a password,
X and a user account would only be created after
X receiving a written request from an authorized manager.
X
X +o All direct incoming modem lines were only allowed to be
X used with UUCP. Dial-in access for employees would be
X required to go through a data switch with callback
X facilities, to insure that calls were originating only
X from authorized locations.
X
X +o All systems would have an automatic security audit
X program executed every night, and mail the results to
X Linda for inspection. To achieve this, Linda was using
X the security utility in UUUUNNNNIIIIXXXX SSSSyyyysssstttteeeemmmm SSSSeeeeccccuuuurrrriiiittttyyyy (Kochan
X and Wood). Although it did not do everything she
X desired, it was still a very good beginning.
X
X +o Knowing that the question of who would be allowed
X possession of the root password is a controversial one
X at many sites, Linda was determined to create a
X sensible and secure policy to manage root permissions
X in her initial documents. In keeping with her sound
X understanding of UNIX system fundamentals, she
X determined only those key individuals who were
X absolutely required to have root permission on their
X system, and bypassed the inevitable random requests of
X other users for root access as a matter of site and
X company policy.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 6 -
X
X
X
X Disasters Happen
X
X The last big piece of documentation Linda wrote was the
X Disaster Recovery Plan. Before we actually look at the plan
X which she proposed for Buildmore Technologies, Inc. a
X general word about Disaster Plans is appropriate:
X
X Many UNIX users and managers think that only large
X commercial sites need a Disaster Recovery Plan, because they
X have high demands for immediate continuation of their data
X processing after a disaster.
X
X However, even very small UNIX sites should have a Disaster
X Recovery Plan. It need not be a solution with alternate
X data centers or standby equipment, but every Unix system
X manager needs to consider what they will do if they lose
X essential parts of their equipment due to natural disaster,
X fire, theft, or just plain failure.
X
X In creating this plan, it is often helpful to have everybody
X at the site play a game of ``what if...?''. What if we lose
X the root disk on our main file server? What happens if our
X only tape drive fails, and we cannot restore any of our
X backups for another week? And so on.
X
X The most important part of this exercise and in writing the
X Disaster Plan, is to analyze the possible manners in which a
X site can fail, and what realistically can be done to prevent
X excessive loses and recover from that situation. All too
X often, a site has no such prior planning in place. When a
X disaster hits, and notice that I have used the word ``when''
X and not ``if'', a lot of time and money is wasted with
X managers and technical personnel alike running around in
X small circles like chickens without heads.
X
X Knowing that intelligent site management demands foresight
X and prior planning, the Disaster Recovery Plan Linda wrote
X for Buildmore Technologies required offsite storage of a
X major part of their backup tapes (tapes were sent offsite
X daily). And, it further required that a good quality
X hardware maintenance contract on all important equipment be
X secured with a reputable company.
X
X If a big disaster, like a major earthquake or a fire should
X hit their site, Linda planned on purchasing new equipment
X and installing a new site over a five month period. While
X this solution was far from ideal, it was an acceptable
X compromise between actual needs and the practical cost of
X implementation.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 7 -
X
X
X
X The only piece of standby equipment she purchased
X immediately was a hard disk, which was pre-formatted and had
X the UNIX system files pre-installed on it. By taking this
X relatively inexpensive precautionary step, if the root disk
X on any of her file servers should fail, she could cut the
X repair time of her system down to only three or four hours,
X instead of one to nine days.
X
X Linda also knew that it is extremely important for every
X UNIX system manager to write a weekly status report. This
X document would serve a number of different and important
X functions for her as System Administrator. Firstly, it was
X a formal method to inform her manager, Dave, about progress
X with ongoing projects, what tasks had been completed, and
X what was needed for the system in the near future. She also
X used the status report to convey any outstanding problems
X which required solutions beyond the scope of her
X responsibility. Any unresolved problem stayed on the status
X report each week, until a satisfactory solution had been
X found for it.
X
X In the beginning of her work with Buildmore Technologies,
X Linda discovered that there was not a sufficient number of
X tape drives on their UNIX system, and that it was impossible
X to provide adequate backup coverage for their systems. She
X listed this as a special and important problem on her weekly
X status reports to Dave, but the top management of Buildmore
X Technologies were reluctant to spend the large sum of money
X which was necessary to implement a functional solution.
X
X When a huge disk drive was lost a couple of months later,
X and there were no recent backups of that drive, Buildmore
X Technologies suffered an estimated loss of over 800 hours of
X engineering time. Because Linda had consistently turned in
X her weekly status reports for the last two months stating
X the existence of that situation and requesting funding for
X additional tape drives, both she and Dave were in the clear
X (some people call this site status reporting method ``CYA'',
X an abbreviation which refers to covering a specific part of
X the body which we will have to leave to the reader's
X imagination!).
X
X Summary
X
X This concludes the first part of our story about Linda's
X work with Buildmore Technologies, Inc. We have described
X how she developed her relationships with management,
X organized a well-documented plan for proper site management,
X and did her professional best to protect the interests of
X her company from the potential economic losses incurred from
X system failures.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 8 -
X
X
X
X She did so by using a combination of two very important
X principles:
X
X First, she exercised exceptionally good judgment in abiding
X by the simple and sound principles of proper UNIX system
X administration and site management.
X
X Second, and very importantly, she remembered that both
X managers and system users are, after all, human beings. She
X understood that fulfilling her technical responsibilities as
X system administrator meant that she would have to
X communicate her plans and the overall system requirements in
X a manner which could be easily understood, accepted and
X supported.
X
X In my next article, I will discuss some of the basic
X requirements for establishing an equally strong rapport with
X the users of a UNIX system. We will see how the same type
X of rapport and clear communication of sound UNIX practices,
X which Linda established with her management at Buildmore
X Technologies, can be extended to the ``user community'' of
X any UNIX site.
X
X Remember, a well managed UNIX system is a happy, secure, and
X reliable UNIX system! See you next issue!
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 9 -
X
X
X
X The Human Aspect of UNIX System
X Management (Part 2)
X
X by Bjorn Satdeva
X
X This is the second of two articles about some of the
X human factors in UNIX system administration. In the last
X article, I stated that traditionally system management is
X seen as a technological task, while the real job is to care
X for a number of fellow human beings. Based on this I showed
X how Linda, a UNIX system manager at the imaginary site
X Buildmore Technologies, created a good working relationship
X with management. In this article, we will look at how a
X similar good relationship can be built with the user
X community.
X
X As I stated last issue, the work with management and the
X work with the user community are not two unrelated
X processes. Even though they have been described separately
X in these two articles, they are very closely interconnected.
X Many of the decisions Linda and Dave, the MIS manager, made
X were based on input from the users.
X
X The important factor here is ``the users''. They are often
X seen as a gray mass of disturbance. A system manager who is
X able to remember that the users are individuals, each in
X many ways dependent on the computer in their daily work,
X will be able to create a better working environment for
X everybody. Many system managers have ruined the reliability
X and security of their sites by being unresponsive to their
X users. When a system manager is not supporting his users,
X then they will attempt to bypass him in order to get their
X work done. The system manager has created an environment
X where the security of the system is under constant attack
X from users, and he is the one who is responsible for the
X security violations, although indirectly.
X
X The method Linda used to establish rapport with the user
X community was almost identical to the manner she used with
X management. By keeping the users informed about the current
X state of the systems, and being doubly sure to communicate
X possible problems and scheduled downtime, she slowly created
X an environment where the users were more understanding of
X the occasional need for downtime or reorganization of the
X systems.
X
X Linda found that most users are reasonable people. They
X often accept even severe restrictions, if they have been
X notified ahead of time, and it has been explained how and
X why the new solution is for the good of the user community
X at large.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 10 -
X
X
X
X Of course, Linda was not able to fulfill every user's
X request. Whenever she was presented with a request which
X could not be fulfilled, she always made sure to have a
X meeting with the involved users to explain why the request
X had to be rejected. At the same meeting she also presented
X what she thought could be workable alternatives. In most
X cases one or more of those alternatives was acceptable to
X the users, but in cases where no alternative could be found,
X she always made sure two things were done. First, she
X finished the meeting with a suggestion that people should
X contact their direct manager in order to have the problem
X escalated in the management hierarchy, and she notified her
X own manager about the situation.
X
X By doing so, she first of all ensured that the users felt
X they had been heard. Through their manager, they felt they
X had an avenue to continue pursuing their requests. By
X notifying her own manager, she had given him a chance to be
X able to support (or reject) her position. In many such
X cases, the item of discussion involved purchase of more
X expensive equipment, and the whole discussion had been
X escalated to a higher level of management, where such
X discussion belongs. In this way good relations with users
X will most likely be kept intact.
X
X How To Say No Nicely
X
X Let's look at a few examples of the kind of requests Linda
X got, where she could not provide the requested service.
X
X One day Joe User came to her office and asked for more disk
X space on the system he was using. When she looked into the
X request, she found that Joe already was occupying more than
X 75 Mbyte of disk space, while the total sources for the
X project he was working on only required 45 Mbyte.
X Confronted with this, Joe explained that he was keeping
X backup copies of his files, so he could go back to previous
X versions. Linda's response was to teach Joe about SCCS
X (Source Code Control System -Ed.), and showing him how he
X could keep old releases without making a copy of the entire
X source tree. Joe was satisfied, and Linda was able to
X reclaim a significant amount of disk space.
X
X Another example is the day Jim Smart walked into her office,
X and demanded to know the root password. Linda was able to
X reject Jim's request on the spot, and expect to be backed up
X by her manager, because Linda had written the Site Policy,
X and had top management sign off on it.
X
X In all such cases, information, education and communication
X proved to be essential.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 11 -
X
X
X
X Let UNIX Help You Manage
X
X UNIX provides a number of tools which help the system
X manager or administrator communicate with the user
X community. Most of these are well known and used at most
X sites, but for completeness, let us see how Linda used these
X tools.
X
X The classical method is of course email. One of the first
X things Linda did was to establish a mail alias, ``all'',
X which could be used to email all users about downtime,
X changes, or other inconveniences. She wrote a small script
X that ensured this alias always was automatically updated
X from the password file, and therefore always representative
X of the existing user community. For communication from the
X users to the system administrators, she made a special
X account, ``sysadmin'' which was forwarded to the operators.
X
X She also made it a policy that all messages sent out by
X email should be reflected in the Message Of The Day file
X (/etc/motd) and vice-versa. By making the information
X redundant, she was able to reach more users, although few
X users did log in on a regular basis, in the workstation
X environment at Buildmore Technologies.
X
X A third method for communicating this kind of information is
X found in UNIX System V with the news command. This command
X allows the system administrator to maintain a number of
X files with information about system status which is shown to
X the users during login. Because Buildmore Technologies was
X using mostly BSD-based workstations, Linda decided not to
X use this facility on the few AT&T systems on the site (news
X should not be confused with the Usenet news).
X
X Besides using these methods for communicating with the
X users, Linda also circulated all the memos she wrote for
X Dave (see the first article) to all the users, with requests
X for comments. All the relevant feedback she got was worked
X into the final documents. This worked especially well in
X her case, as she was new to Buildmore Technologies. Lots of
X information about previous decisions and configurations was
X explained to her by engineers who had been at Buildmore for
X years. As this information was documented nowhere other
X than in the brains of those people, she was able to obtain
X information which kept her from making several important
X mistakes.
X
X Most important, Linda wanted to ensure that communications
X with her users were working both ways. She therefore let
X everybody know that she always was available for a chat
X about problems or suggestions from the users, and many
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 12 -
X
X
X
X potential problems were avoided or easily solved by such
X informal meetings. It would not have been possible to run
X the site without the framework Linda had put in place in the
X form of policies and procedures, but none of these created
X so much trust and rapport with the users as these meetings.
X
X Dealing With Humans Is Necessary
X
X By treating both managers and users as human beings, and by
X establishing sound policies for the UNIX system management,
X she was able to protect Buildmore Technologies from serious
X system failures. Through establishing both functional
X procedures for system management and establishing good
X rapport with people using UNIX - whether manager or user -
X she created effective feedback which helped her prevent most
X of the problems seen in less well-run sites.
X
X The picture painted of Linda and Buildmore Technologies may
X seem completely unrealistic to some readers, but skeptics
X can be assured that these methods work. In the real world,
X there are both incompetent managers and unreasonable users,
X but a competent system manager can still create a well
X administrate and well functioning site in spite of such
X people.
X
X In addition to technical skills, the key to successful UNIX
X system management is providing lots of ``TLC'' to users and
X managers, and to remember that sometimes ``CYA'' can be
X necessary.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
END_OF_FILE
echo shar: 61 control characters may be missing from \"'misc/art.rt'\"
if test 29944 -ne `wc -c <'misc/art.rt'`; then
echo shar: \"'misc/art.rt'\" unpacked with wrong size!
fi
# end of 'misc/art.rt'
fi
if test -f 'misc/art.ur2' -a "${1}" != "-c" ; then
echo shar: Will not clobber existing file \"'misc/art.ur2'\"
else
echo shar: Extracting \"'misc/art.ur2'\" \(15924 characters\)
sed "s/^X//" >'misc/art.ur2' <<'END_OF_FILE'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X $Id: art.ur2.N,v 5.3.2.5 91/09/03 09:55:38 policy USENET $
X
X Revised from "Famous Last Words", UNIX REVIEW,
X July 1991 (Vol. 9, No. 7)
X
X
X AAAA GGGGLLLLIIIIMMMMPPPPSSSSEEEE OOOOFFFF TTTTHHHHEEEE GGGGAAAALLLLLLLLOOOOWWWWSSSS
X
X by Bud Hovell
X
X
X ``_A _g_l_i_m_p_s_e _o_f _t_h_e _g_a_l_l_o_w_s _h_a_s _a _m_a_r_v_e_l_o_u_s _w_a_y _o_f _f_o_c_u_s_s_i_n_g
X _t_h_e _m_i_n_d.'' - Dr. Ben Johnson
X
X
X IIIInnnnttttrrrroooodddduuuuccccttttiiiioooonnnn
X
X There is evidence of growing concern by administrators in
X the UNIX community and elsewhere about how to achieve an
X appropriate level of control over the local computing
X environment through policy guidance.
X
X Indeed, policy is now becoming a hot topic. More adminis-
X trators recognize increasing need to assure that users
X (including themselves) will not subvert the organizational
X mission or system integrity, violate basic minimum standards
X of courtesy, privacy, and ethics, or inadvertently incur
X criminal or civil liabilities.
X
X It is not true that ``people are no damn good'', and that
X one must, therefore, check their tendency to intentional
X diabolic mischief. There is no need to imprison users.
X
X But with a numerical expansion of ordinary login users and
X an obscene abundance of eager lawyers, the preparation and
X maintenance of carefully crafted policy eventually may
X become a precondition for networking survival. (It may even
X come to pass that some body of fundamental policy "stan-
X dards" may be adopted in order to avoid the chaos of having
X each organization gin up its own home-spun protocol, result-
X ing in a crazy-quilt of policy definitions which mainly
X differ only in choice of language.)
X
X The current trend seems certain to head us all into higher
X levels of risk. Administrators who now express concern
X about these growing risks may turn out to have been the
X ``futurists''.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 2 -
X
X
X
X SSSSoooo WWWWhhhhaaaatttt''''ssss tttthhhheeee NNNNeeeewwwwssss????
X
X A recent voluntary survey we conducted among system adminis-
X trators and system managers on the uuuusssseeeennnneeeetttt drew returns from
X nearly 300 respondents located at educational, commercial,
X and other organizations. These locations serve some 100,000
X users, and most have more than a hundred users each. These
X points emerge for immediate comment.
X
X Half of administrators and system managers say they have
X held primary authority to define policies, and two-thirds
X that they have been the primary enforcement authority -- and
X will be so in the future.
X
X Allowing policy to be primarily defined by individual user
X practices has been the historical case at one-third of
X sites, but this will dramatically decline to only one-fifth
X in the future.
X
X Verbal transmission of policy has been the dominant pattern
X at half of all sites, historically, but will fall to only
X one-quarter of sites.
X
X Fewer than ten percent of administrators identify upper
X management decisions as the source of primary authority,
X either for policy definition or for policy enforcement. And
X they forecast only a faint upward trend.
X
X So there is some good news -- and some bad.
X
X TTTThhhheeee GGGGoooooooodddd NNNNeeeewwwwssss
X
X Evidently, allowing each user to ``do his own thing'' is
X going to be a fading practice as time goes on, and the
X majority of administrators will assert their own authority
X to influence adoption of more formal definition and enforce-
X ment of local policy.
X
X Administrators hold positions of trust by demonstrating both
X technical knowledge and personal integrity. They must sup-
X port the needs of users, while also fending off unwarranted
X threats to the system itself.
X
X Also, administrators have the most intimate knowledge of
X system (and user) behavior, and are thus able to offer
X unique insight for the framing of effective written policy.
X
X They are also, therefore, the logical first persons for
X users to turn to for expert guidance on policy interpreta-
X tion and computer usage procedures.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 3 -
X
X
X
X TTTThhhheeee BBBBaaaadddd NNNNeeeewwwwssss
X
X What should throw up a red flag to even the most casual
X observer is the almost total lack of mention of top manage-
X ment as the primary authority for either definition or
X enforcement of how computer resources will be used.
X
X Top management members have no more valuable function than
X to underwrite key policy decisions upon which everyone will
X depend for effective, coordinated action. And this simply
X doesn't appear to be happening for computer resource policy.
X This creates a yawning chasm of uncertainty for everyone --
X and not least for the system administrator.
X
X The administrator may be the main agent for working with
X users and supervisors to define and present the policy pro-
X posal. But without top management as the approving and
X enforcing authority, the adminstrator may be sailing in
X treacherous waters, indeed: he or she should help forge and
X operate the levers of policy, but should _n_e_v_e_r be pressed
X into service as the ultimate fulcrum of authority.
X
X PPPPoooolllliiiiccccyyyy aaaannnndddd AAAAuuuutttthhhhoooorrrriiiittttyyyy
X
X It is often appropriate to delegate responsibility and
X authority as far down into the organization as possible. But
X top management is not then free to simply disappear; it must
X still stand firmly and visibly behind those policies upon
X which the organization relies to limit exposure to poten-
X tially grievous mistakes that could be costly in a networked
X environment.
X
X In a recent article, ``Policies for Appropriate Use of Net-
X work and Computing Resources'', CERFnet News, May 1991 (Vol.
X 3, No. 4), Brent Auernheimer points out:
X
X In addition to defining acceptable user behavior, poli-
X cies provide a locus of action in which administrators
X can operate confidently and that supervisors can justify.
X
X It is important that when incidents of inappropriate
X behavior arise, system administrators have options avail-
X able other than to immediately cut off accused users, or
X to do nothing, allowing the possible misuse to continue.
X
X A well written policy is essential in making fair, defen-
X sible decisions.
X
X When required to act, the administrator must have clearly
X defined authority which only top management can legitimately
X give.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 4 -
X
X
X
X It should be the administrator's first priority to gain this
X authority by any ethical means. This may require dragging
X the dark hearse of potential lawsuit through the legal
X department and right up to the front door of the executive
X offices -- or simply re-flavoring the dish to match the con-
X temporary tastes of upper management (_s_e_e _N_o_t_e).
X
X Every reasonable measure should be taken by the administra-
X tor to ensure his or her decisions will never be undercut by
X someone higher up. One never knows for sure that top manage-
X ment backing is solid until controversy actually presents
X the acid test. ``Real'' policy is only what top management
X will back to the hilt.
X
X The only thing more dreadful than no policy at all is having
X one that deceives by offering a false promise of full sup-
X port which falters in the breech. Policies which receive
X public, written endorsement from top management rarely
X suffer this fate.
X
X FFFFooooccccuuuussssssssiiiinnnngggg tttthhhheeee MMMMiiiinnnndddd
X
X When developing policy, one should keep a sharp eye on the
X gallows. From a front-row seat, if possible.
X
X Writing effective policy is nothing less than the dead-
X serious business of formulating strategies to successfully
X cheat the hangman at every turn. Right now, it appears that
X most of what exists for a guide is legal and lay speculation
X -- but few tangible court rulings.
X
X Now, I'm no lawyer (and will never play one on TV), so when
X I hear that there is a significant new area of law about
X which even the courts haven't really spoken, I become only
X mildly tuned in to the discussion. But when I realize that
X my company could conceivably be invited to help define that
X new law in the form of an unappetizing lawsuit where no one
X has even a vague notion of what the outcome will be, then my
X thoughts become more sober.
X
X Such concern should not be lightly dismissed: juries come in
X with some pretty weird findings these days. And lawyers get
X their reputations not only by winning, but by being credited
X with defining "new law", invariably at someone else's
X expense.
X
X It may be reasonable to assume that any organization operat-
X ing today in a networked environment probably is exposed to
X some sort of workable claim which might be troublesome to
X resolve under threat of suit. Someone will eventually be
X nominated to be "it" in this game of legal blindmans-bluff.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 5 -
X
X
X
X One would wish to ward off an invitation to the platform to
X share in this dubious honor.
X
X DDDDooooddddggggiiiinnnngggg tttthhhheeee NNNNoooooooosssseeee
X
X Since the courts offer little valuable guidance about how to
X safely proceed in an internetworked environment, the best
X available substitute may well be the experience of the
X administrator, expressed within written policies which top
X management is willing to endorse. (Competent legal review
X wouldn't hurt either, but don't make the mistake of turning
X over the main task to your lawyer: he'll want to write it
X for court, and you must be sure it's written, instead, for
X people.)
X
X Indeed, the very best available defense under fire may prove
X to be formal, well-advertised policy which preexists any
X claim by a user that his rights were grievously violated as
X the consequence of transactions and behaviors between per-
X sons in a multi-user environment (for which management might
X be held liable).
X
X Management, according to its particular mission, has the
X duty of asserting adequate policy control over how owned
X resources shall be used. Failure to publically articulate
X such policy before a claim arises may be tantamount to
X pleading ``no contest''.
X
X PPPPllllaaaaiiiinnnn JJJJuuuussssttttiiiicccceeee
X
X Ultimately, the motivation and rational for publishing
X comprehensive and appropriate policy has less to do with
X fear of brutish court proceedings and much more to do with
X fundamental human courtesy and plain, simple justice.
X
X Providing sound, thoughtful policies for the users in an
X organization is not just a nice thing to do. It's the
X responsible thing to do.
X
X No real substitute exists for letting people know, right up
X front, what is really expected of them. Putting it in a con-
X cise form that is forthright and unambiguous helps defeat
X private interpretation, which invariably rushes to fill a
X vacuum. It is then absolutely reasonable to expect users to
X fully live up to it. The vast majority will do so with a
X willing sense of responsibility and no complaints.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - 6 -
X
X
X
X [ NOTE ]
X
X PPPPoooolllliiiiccccyyyy IIIIssss QQQQuuuuaaaalllliiiittttyyyy
X
X The administrative staff at the Midget-Widget Manufacturing
X Company recently received the following missive from the MIS
X Manager: ``_I_n_c_r_e_m_e_n_t_a_l _b_a_c_k_u_p_s _o_f _a_l_l _u_s_e_r _f_i_l_e_s _w_i_l_l _b_e
X _p_e_r_f_o_r_m_e_d _b_y _t_h_e _o_n-_d_u_t_y _a_d_m_i_n_i_s_t_r_a_t_o_r _b_e_g_i_n_n_i_n_g _a_t _1_1 _p_m
X _e_a_c_h _d_a_y, _e_x_c_e_p_t _t_h_a_t _o_n _F_r_i_d_a_y _i_t _w_i_l_l _b_e _a _f_u_l_l _b_a_c_k_u_p.''
X
X System administrators now have a very specific procedure
X about what actions must be taken, when, and by whom. But
X what the administrator staff never saw was this previously-
X written policy directive to the MIS Manager from the General
X Manager at Midget-Widget: ``_A_l_l _l_o_c_a_l _c_o_m_p_u_t_e_r_s _m_u_s_t _b_e
X _b_a_c_k_e_d _u_p _a_t _a _f_r_e_q_u_e_n_c_y _t_o _e_n_s_u_r_e _t_h_a_t _a_n_y _s_y_s_t_e_m _f_a_i_l_u_r_e,
X _n_a_t_u_r_a_l _d_i_s_a_s_t_e_r, _o_r _o_t_h_e_r _c_a_l_a_m_i_t_y _w_i_l_l _n_e_v_e_r _r_e_s_u_l_t _i_n
X _m_o_r_e _t_h_a_n _e_i_g_h_t _h_o_u_r_s _l_o_s_t _w_o_r_k-_p_r_o_d_u_c_t _f_o_r _a_n_y _l_o_g_i_n
X _u_s_e_r.'' Notice that the General Manager has defined his
X policy in terms of a specific, measurable outcome -- that
X lost work-product for any user may never exceed eight hours.
X Now we can fully understand the standard the MIS Manager is
X trying to meet in the procedure that he has written for his
X own staff.
X
X Regrettably, the procedure must be rejected. The Human
X Resources Manager tells us that there is a new programmer
X just hired who will begin working four 10-hour days each
X week so that he can have more time to visit his sick mother
X in San Pedro. Also, Midget-Widget has extraordinarily dedi-
X cated users who routinely stay an hour or so late to finish
X up their work.
X
X So the the MIS Manager must now redesign his procedure to
X handle all known exceptions. Or negotiate with the General
X Manager to change the stated standard.
X
X With an outcome-oriented policy in place, weighing the suf-
X ficiency and appropriateness of procedure becomes a much
X simpler task, and helps make solid quality-enhancement of
X the user environment an achievable goal. Though top
X managers may not always support strong ``policy'', they may
X stand in line to sign up for what you present as ``qual-
X ity''!
X
X [ Author Bio ]
X
X Bud Hovell is a productivity and project management special-
X ist with MMMMTTTTEEEEKKKK IIIInnnntttteeeerrrrnnnnaaaattttiiiioooonnnnaaaallll,,,, IIIInnnncccc....
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
END_OF_FILE
echo shar: 881 control characters may be missing from \"'misc/art.ur2'\"
if test 15924 -ne `wc -c <'misc/art.ur2'`; then
echo shar: \"'misc/art.ur2'\" unpacked with wrong size!
fi
# end of 'misc/art.ur2'
fi
echo shar: End of archive 3 \(of 3\).
cp /dev/null ark3isdone
MISSING=""
for I in 1 2 3 ; do
if test ! -f ark${I}isdone ; then
MISSING="${MISSING} ${I}"
fi
done
if test "${MISSING}" = "" ; then
echo You have unpacked all 3 archives.
echo "'This is usenet version 5.3.2.5 of 91/09/03.'"
rm -f ark[1-9]isdone
else
echo You still need to unpack the following archives:
echo " " ${MISSING}
fi
## End of shell archive.
exit 0
--
Bud Hovell
_______________
policy@mtek.com