Most of the projects I work on are in the financial and healthcare sectors. 100% of them are doing BYOD. These are some of the largest companies in their respective industries. One healthcare related company just bought 40,000 iPads for their sales force. Where I am now they have 30,000 people using Citrix XenApp and are scaling up a XenDesktop project to 11,000 users. They are supporting almost every kind of device imaginable: iPhone, iPad, Androids, Surface, Mac OSX, Win7, etc.
Brian Madden is a recognized name and thought leader in this space. But as a thought leader, his goal is to make you think. Think about the ways users are getting around IT (I see it daily at my current project), think about how IT really does not and cannot control every device. Back when Brian was in the trenches doing designs and installs, he designed and built some of the world's largest TS/RDS/XenApp environments. He does know his stuff. I think he is trying to stretch IT's way of thinking and can be considered more of a provocateur now. What we did in IT 5 or 10 years ago may not work with today's users and how they work and or want or need to access company data. Just my $0.02US worth Carl Webster Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional http://www.CarlWebster.com<http://www.carlwebster.com/> From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@live.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 9:46 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Some interesting thoughts about network security One of the things I saw in the article was part of his reasoning on this was the BYOD movement. I know a lot of places are looking at this and some have even gone for it but if it was a financial firm or a health care provider I don't know if I would want to do business with them. BYOD just opens too many cans of worms for me to feel comfortable with those firms doing that. IF they were using something like VDI or Citrix like work interface I would only be marginally comfortable. I don't see that happening unless a company really looks at where the data is stored and the risk of that data getting "lost" to parties unknown. From all that I am seeing it is more management wanting to push the cost of the workers hardware to the worker and little else is taken into account until they get bit hard and are faced with lawsuits due to their lack of use of their brains. Jon ________________________________ From: k...@adopenstatic.com<mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com> To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com<mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com> Subject: RE: Some interesting thoughts about network security Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:33:16 +0000 My thoughts: a) "One size fits all" solutions simply don't fit most organisations. Some e.g.: a. (e.g. "you support users connecting from home today", so obviously you can obviously scale to support the entire organisation doing the same at work, or b. "give each user their own VLAN" - yeah, we'll create 100,000 VLANs - imagine maintaining the FWs, routers, and how much more complex user provisioning and de-provisioning is going to be. What happens when users move between buildings? Telcos can make this happen, but telcos are in the networking business. b) Treating wireless users as "external" and then making them VPN in isn't new - that's been the thinking for 20 years. It was "start of the art" maybe in 2000, but it's not now c) I know Microsoft was arguing for the "hard core" and "soft shell" since circa 2006 or so - so even that's now new. However I disagree that there should be one boundary (around the data centre) and we ignore everything else. Obviously Brian doesn't understand how large organisations (and I'm guessing other sizes as well - I don't have that much experience) work. Most banks (for example) are stuffed full of "knowledge workers" that depend on data being on their client PCs. For example I've seen reconciliations in a large institutional bank being run on over 2,000 excel spreadsheets due to lack of straight through processing between diverse systems. You can treat them as being "on the internet", but that's too difficult to do in practise with granularity. If you make them VPN in, you end up giving them wide-open access anyway. So why not just use 802.1x to guard your physical (including WiFi) access? Surely 802.1x is easier and cheaper to deploy than catering for 100,000+ VPN connections? This looks like just another "magic bullet" - simple solution to a complex problem that only works in simple (i.e. small) environments. Cheers Ken From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] Sent: Monday, 15 April 2013 10:24 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Some interesting thoughts about network security http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/brianmadden/archive/2013/04/15/rethinking-network-security-all-your-on-premises-wifi-users-are-actually-quot-remote-quot-users.aspx ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
