1 |
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stroller |
2 |
<stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On 6 Aug 2008, at 14:28, Daniel da Veiga wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Francisco Ares <frares@×××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> ... |
9 |
>>> I know that things such as address, trafic, bandwith are easy to be |
10 |
>>> tracked and logged, but what about, say, my gmail messages - is it |
11 |
>>> possible to log them also? Which package should I use or look for? |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> ... |
14 |
>> The only way I can think for you to keep track of your messages is to |
15 |
>> sniff unencrypted packages (https wouldn't work), look for specific |
16 |
>> patterns and use that to estimate usage, of course, I'm considering |
17 |
>> your statement about bandwidth, traffic, address and the fact that |
18 |
>> something like that would be a hard, complex and not NEAR fail proof |
19 |
>> concept, along with the privacy issues, of course. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> I read OP's question that he isn't interested in the *bandwidth* of the |
22 |
> Hotmail messages, per-se - I thought he was just giving bandwidth monitoring |
23 |
> as an example of a routine network management task that is easy & obvious to |
24 |
> undertake in establishing the background to his question. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> In some companies it is indeed necessary to have a handle on this sort of |
27 |
> thing. AIUI to meet certain financial regulations intended to prevent |
28 |
> insider-trading (Sarbanes-Oxley?) one must have facilities in place to |
29 |
> monitor all communications in & out the building. I suppose that at one time |
30 |
> recording all telephone calls would have required a prohibitive quantity of |
31 |
> cassette tapes, so a supervisor listening in randomly would be acceptable, |
32 |
> but leaving webmail accounts ignored is a huge hole. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Privacy issues should be covered by a company IT usage policy. I think that |
35 |
> stating that all traffic is logged would cover this - see your lawyer as to |
36 |
> how you phrase this exactly. Ensure that auditing is undertaken in a |
37 |
> documented and regimented manner - it should probably be a separate role |
38 |
> from IT admin and or a boss probably shouldn't be looking at his employees |
39 |
> emails; you should probably have a person randomly looking at messages for |
40 |
> *specific* infractions (and they should probably be trained to ignore |
41 |
> anything "naughty" that isn't specifically within their remit). |
42 |
> |
43 |
> I have played with wireshark &/or etherreal in the past and have been AMAZED |
44 |
> at how clearly interactions can be logged when filtering is set correctly. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Daniel: might it not be possible to have the firewall drop https connections |
47 |
> to hotmail / gmail / yahoo mail domains, thus forcing the users back to |
48 |
> unencrypted http? That begs the question: if you can do that, why not just |
49 |
> completely block access to webmail sites? |
50 |
> |
51 |
|
52 |
Yeah, maybe I misunderstood the OP question. If we are talking about |
53 |
an enterprise network, of course, you can even transparently redirect |
54 |
the request, if a proxy is configured at the gateway. Completely |
55 |
blocking webmail is an option, as you correctly stated, security and |
56 |
network policies apply, and there are laws (at least in my country) |
57 |
that say a employer CAN read its employees mails (of their enterprise |
58 |
account, of course). Anyway, a company CAN keep their network (and/or |
59 |
communications in general) clean, reduce security exploits, and keep |
60 |
track of their employees, if they take the time and pay someone to do |
61 |
it (and of course, provide the hardware). |
62 |
|
63 |
I play with sniffers, but never to the extent of analysing package |
64 |
contents, only to create statistics, and its good to know you can do |
65 |
that with filtering (may talk to the boss about that, too much |
66 |
streaming sites eating our bandwidth). |
67 |
|
68 |
PS: I'm almost completing law school. Too bad my english is not THAT |
69 |
good to translate that... lol |
70 |
|
71 |
-- |
72 |
Daniel da Veiga |