|
On 5/12/14 4:16 PM, Mike Cunningham wrote:
Routine audits of the system audit logs looking for an security admin
who gave themselves access to a file they don't need to access
Hmm. By which time said admin would have probably had plenty of time to get his or her hands into the cookie jar. Sounds "REactive, rather than PROactive," and not much of an improvement over those same audits catching the rogue admin actually ACCESSING the data.
Seems to me that a proper implementation would be like the usual drill of two keys needed to access a safe deposit box: to grant a new user access to the restricted object, one ought to need BOTH a user WITH access to the object, and a user able to GRANT access to it, to sign off on the authority.
Of course, up through V7R1, they would by definition be the same user.
--
JHHL
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.