RSSSan Francisco city computer hijacker faces fewer charges
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 24, 2009, 11:21 AM
It was last February when Terry Childs, a former employee of the City of San Francisco's IT department, sat down with InfoWorld's Paul Venezia in a jailhouse interview about his bizarre case. He was a high-level administrator of his division's computers, but after learning in July 2008 he would be reassigned to a different department, he sent those systems into a state of lockdown that only he could undo.
There's no doubt it was Childs who held city services in a virtual cryogenic state. Upon his surrender to authorities, he gave the Mayor the keys needed to unlock city systems. Childs faced four counts of tampering with city property and shutting down access. But last Friday, a judge tossed out the three tampering charges, reported the San Francisco Chronicle, leaving only the single count pertaining to the lockdown.
Showing absolutely no contrition during his interview with Venezia, Childs indicated that his goal was full exoneration, especially because the fate of his Cisco certification depended on it. "I'd lose my CCIE, and I worked too hard for that," he told InfoWorld.
I could of swore that he was getting laid off, not transferred, guess I'll have to look up the pertinent articles again.
I'm all for security, but if I remember correctly, one of the big issues was not having dual security, something we are required to have in the banking industry. In other words, if I make changes, they have to be vetted by another person. These controls are built into some of the systems. As far as I know, gov is the same way.
Score: 0
|Boy, did they ever water down this story. I remember reading nearly everything printed about this case. It wasn't because he was getting transfered. He had the system configured for complete security, like any CCIE should. Lots of checks and balances, and only those who had proven their mettle could get access to admin those units. Good for him. He should get exonerated.
Score: 0
|Looking into the story again, part of the problem was that he was the sole person with access to the network. He was not being transferred, as you said, rather being audited by the new city DTIS (Director of Telecommunications and Information Systems). He felt threatened by the unannounced audit, and refused to comply. Eventually he was suspended for insubordination.
What I see as the biggest problem here, is that he was the sole administrator. I see part of the fault with Child's supervisors for not enforcing good policy and regulations. Part of the problem, of course, is that the city didn't have an Information Security policy when the network was originally set up, but then again, at that time it probably wasn't as important as it is now. I've been in the same position of building the network first, then figure out the regulations and try to re-configure to fit regulations and policy. It is easier to let it slide. I just have to wonder, are any of the supervisors being fined for their part in this.
Score: 0
|The fact that he was the only admin isn't a problem. Where he went wrong is in not having a "hit by a bus" policy. There should have been a set of credentials and those should have been documented, sealed in an envelope, and secured. If he was hit by a bus, the city would be able to call in a contactor/expert/vendor, and keep things running. Same if he's terminated/sick/etc.
Having more than one admin is, of course, a valid solution - but only if there is the work and funding to do so.
Score: 0
|if you ask me he should of waited till he had a full pardon
Score: 0
|I guess this gentleman just confirmed as to why he got transferred. looks like a classic case of reversed moral. Or should one just accept the inability of a single person to deal properly with his/her own life to be passed on to the silent and unknown masses ? I do not think it to be in the interest of mankind to justify what is simply wrong.
But then again, I just maybe out of touch with today's world eh ?
Score: 0
|If he worked soo hard for it, then why the heck did he lockdown the City's computer system! Being mad at your boss because you're getting transferred to a different dept is not a valid reason to hold the city's computer network captive. Doubt he's gonna get much work even if all the charges are dropped. Everyone knows what he did and he freely admitted it!
Score: 0
|