Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 14th, 2004 @ 12:55pm

   
   

   The company I currently work for block everything outgoing except HTTP[S] due to some severe paranoia that someone will upload our sourcecode to (guess they didn't realise you could just use 100Mb Gmail attachments or something!)
   
   The problem is, this can be a pain, as it means we can't even upload/download from our own FTP servers, we can't SSH into our own servers, we can't provide support to our customers via VNC/RDP, and we can't use support from our suppliers who only provide IM support (even the Java IM clients don't work!) So it's actually reducing productivity by blocking these protocols.
   
   I probably agree though, 90% of IM usage would be for personal use, not that many companies use it for support yet.
   
   If companies are worried about people wasting time on WebMail and blogs, imagine the amount of waste that IM would create!
   
   Plus there's the danger of IM viruses and spam.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 14th, 2004 @ 1:28pm

   
   

   you are a true corporate slave

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 14th, 2004 @ 2:25pm

   
   

   A friend of mine works for the State DEQ in Mississippi. Someone there whispered into the ear of a manager that the internet is evil!! They've blocked access to most websites including all personal email (hotmail, gmail, etc) and all IM usage.
   
   One of the guys my buddy works with is a contractor and works offsite. They used to communicate via IM almost exclusively. Now, they have to communicate via the phone or through (ick) Lotus Notes.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 14th, 2004 @ 2:40pm

   
   

   Cutting off access to the web is a pretty stupid move - I don't think I'd get a lot of work done without being able to reference Google and API's etc. - or the boss would have to pay for a lot of books.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Surprising...

   

   Tony Gentile, Sep 14th, 2004 @ 4:46pm

   
   

   Every tech company I've worked at or consulted for over the past 4 years has encouraged (and some even required) everyone to run a common IM client in order to provide yet another comm channel.
   
   I suspect the real issue is around making sure all that IM time (web surfing time, etc) is "productive" vs. personal.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Corporate controlled IM

   

   Matt, Sep 14th, 2004 @ 7:32pm

   
   

   My company has a pretty restrictive internet policy, blocking many harmless websites and major IM clients, presumably for the reduced productivity factor. But then we rely heavily on Sametime, a Lotus Notes chat client, for work. They obviously see the value instant messaging can provide, but they feel the need to control it. Frustrating, but there's your "proactive response." Luckily the IT geeks found a rogue proxy server that we can sneak Yahoo and AIM through.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   From the POV of the security guys

   

   Nonesuch, Sep 14th, 2004 @ 7:51pm

   
   

   I'm a "infosec" guy for a big corp, so I tend to see these questions from the viewpoint of management and shareholders.

   There are a number of problems with "Internet IM" -- some of these do not apply to a purely internal "walled garden" private messaging system.

   • IM client vulnerabilities pose a risk of allowing in attackers, both automated (worms) and manual (hackers).
   • The various Internet protocols do not support any standardized identity protocol, anybody can go on IM and pose as "ceo@yourcompany" without accountability.
   • The majority of IM to the Internet is for non-business communication.
   • Use of IM to the Internet for business communication sends potentially sensitive information out to third parties (AOL may not have your best interests at heart).
   • Commercial IM solutions for corporate deployments are very expensive -- $10/seat/year and up.
   • The "instant" in IM is a distraction, reducing productivity.
   • Most corps have low-latency intranet email systems, already providing much of the benefit that IM would provide.

   Basically, Instant Messaging fills the small gap between the functionality provided by phone calls and email, but the cost and risk is often seen as outweighing the negligible benefit that can come from filling this gap.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   data64, Sep 14th, 2004 @ 9:28pm

   
   

   The company I currently work for block everything outgoing except HTTP[S]

   I have used Miranda IM in such environments quite successfully, with all 4 major IM services, jabber was not very stable unfortunately :( http://sourceforge.net/projects/miranda-icq/

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: From the POV of the security guys

   

   Mike (profile), Sep 14th, 2004 @ 9:51pm

   
   

   All of these assume that IM is only for internal communications... The real power of IM is that it can be used for both internal and external communications.
   
   Of course with *any* system for external communications there's going to be some security risks. However, assuming that all IM is bad is a solution that will backfire, just like companies who originally wanted to ban the phone realized just how stupid that plan was.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: No Subject Given

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 15th, 2004 @ 8:54am

    
    

    Nope, Miranda doesn't work - the proxy checks the content of packets is HTML too....

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment