[Web4lib] IM Security

[Ross Singer]

Honestly, this sounds like stonewalling.  These IT people must have
somebody they report to, take your business case to that person and
make these IT folks explain to /that/ person why they won't allow IM.

It might be helpful to list other organizations that allow chat for
this for this purpose.  I'm not sure where you can find such a list,
but I'll throw my hat in the ring and say that Georgia Tech is one of
them.

-Ross.

On 3/5/07, Jami Haskell <jamihaskell at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, they didn't mention a specific security risk -- just that IM would allow
> folks to penetrate the network and is therefore a no-go.
>
> I will look into the Jabber server and what this would require.
> I would rather not have a local server or application because i want this to
> be opened up to our users.
>
> Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it. I don't have enough
> experience to argue with these guys and they love to say no to the things
> that library wants to do!
>
> Jami
>
>
> On 3/5/07, Micah Stevens <micah at raincross-tech.com> wrote:
> >
> > Security Risk in what way? If by interacting with an outside server to
> > provide the IM service you have a security risk, then just install a
> > local Jabber server which is supported by many IM clients. This would
> > also solve any sort of worry about an IM system distributed virus (Which
> > has happened before through MSN I believe... )
> >
> > If all you need is a service for the local group of people, a local
> > server is a good way to go in my opinion because it's safer, you can
> > control exactly how it behaves, and you eliminate any concerns about
> > people using the IM for things other than work.
> >
> > Just my two cents. Did they mention exactly what kind of security risk
> > they were worried about? Throwing around key words just inflames and
> > doesn't help the situation usually.
> >
> > -Micah
> >
> > Jami Haskell wrote:
> > > Please help!
> > > I would like to implement IM for inter-staff communications and,
> > > hopefully,
> > > for reference/user services at my library.
> > > However, I am being met with major resistance from my systems staff.
> > They
> > > claim that it is too much of a security risk and we cannot do it.
> > >
> > > Every other library I have worked in has used IM (either via Trillian or
> > > meebo) and security issues were never raised. I know that thousands of
> > > libraries use IM all the time. I am proposing that my library system use
> > > Meebo for this so that they can interact with multiple IM clients
> > without
> > > having to install software on the machines.
> > >
> > > How can I explain to my systems folks that this is an okay thing to do??
> > > Please help!
> > >
> > > Thanks so much,
> > > Jami Haskell
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>