The question was "How To", not "Should I".
I don't have any issues with running a script like this, as long as the network is locked down properly.
As an Engineer in a pretty respectable environment during the week, and a Senior NCO in a military position, I have seen both sides of the security argument.
Both my civilian and military jobs have a huge amount of security in place.
What I have found, is often times, security trumps the ability to work, or at least work effectively.
At the same time, the business units, sometimes trump security to make the business work.
I have seen desktop and server lockdown policies that make routine tasks take huge amounts of time to complete. Tasks that would take a competent admin 30 minutes to complete, take a month to complete, because you have to physically touch every system.
In the end, in every situation, the cost factor and managability of managing systems securely (with risk in mind) has always won in the end. Do you want to have 10 times the number of personnel to manage systems, to make systems useful & secure, because a little extra security has crippled your ability to manage those systems.
The big question is, what is the risk, what is the chance of risk, what are we doing to mitigate the risk, and so on? That being said, who is going to be responsible for the risk?
Please don't take this post as a "Security is a pain" gripe session. It is not. The issue at hand is, what is it going to take to "Run the business" at an acceptable risk, with the best utilization, and the best cost factor.
I am 100% committed to security in my positions, and will not sacrifice security for functionality, if there is no way to keep it secure. If there is no way to secure it, why look at a solution (whatever it may be), if it can't be. That would simply be a bad decision.
Respectfully,
Jase McCarty
Jase McCarty - @jasemccarty
