piercing corporate FW outbound

[Chris Brenton]

On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 14:09, Michael ODonnell wrote:
>
> No.  I'm "upset" because terms of an agreement are
> being violated. 

Then sue them or quit. I'm guessing that corporate attitude probably
feels that during work hours they 0wn you and if the connectivity does
not further the business model then they don't need to support it. 

In a way, you've kind of painted yourself into a corner. The time to
raise the issue was when SSH was first blocked. Say something now and IT
can fall back on "well its been blocked for a while and there was not
complaints". That puts you in a position of admitting that you have been
circumventing corporate policy. Depending on the environment, they could
consider you dangerous and the act to be grounds for dismissal.

>  One's opinion of those terms is
> irrelevant - the agreement was made under no duress
> by supposedly competent adults acting as authorized
> agents and it therefore ought be honored.

If you have it in writing, you're cooking with gas. If not, good luck
making your case. Corporate policies change. If you can't prove this
level of access was a contingency of accepting the job, you are going to
have a hard sell.

> (sigh!)  If only that were true - then this mightn't
> be so galling.  Unfortunately, the corporate IT
> infrastructure is perpetually a mess

That may be completely true but maybe this is part of their attempt to
get a handle on it.

> Right.  Understood.  But that's a POSSIBLE risk, with
> no known instances in-house, in contrast to the daily
> horror inflicted on us by all the MS-related problems.

Perimeter security is all about which risks you choose to accept (either
knowing or unknowing) and which one's you don't. If you can make a case
that SSH is required to doing business, I'm sure you can get an
exception made to permit the access.

> As an aside, I'll mention that yes, I do actually use the
> channel daily for purposes that further my ability to do my
> job,

Then make that case! :)

>  but that's irrelevant because it's not up for debate -
> that opportunity passed once the agreement was made.

Dude, this may sound harsh, but life changes. Deal with it. I've been
hired for 1st shift jobs and been told that business need has changed
and if I want to keep my job I have to start working 2nd shift. I've
been at companies that have decided to relocate to a new facility 45
miles away from the original location. My choices were the same as
what's open to you now; recognize that from a corporate perspective
business need comes first and deal with the change, or quit.   

Chris