IFSM 304 Week 6 Discussion

docx

School

University of Maryland, University College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

304

Subject

Business

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by gnomechild666

Report
IFSM 304 Week 6 Discussion A pressing ethical issue that organizations face today revolves around the potential for malicious intent and harmful actions either from within or without. Specifically, this discussion will focus on the insider threat using an example known as “saboteurs.” These individuals exhibit various indicators, including conflicts with colleagues, warnings from the human resources department, and allegations of engaging in drug-related activities during normal business hours (Shaw & Fischer, 2005) and intend to sabotage daily operations. I will begin with the saboteur who will be known as “Sabo” for discussion purposes who was quite cordial to me – a fresh new NOC employee who was gifted the graveyard shift – at the time. “Sabo” oversaw the hotel management system (HMS) and was the sole system administrator. The HMS was an all-in-one system that functioned as a control panel and database for in-room entertainment (e.g. uploading new movies and other types of content) and tracked guest purchases for several resort properties that had contracted the services to us. “Sabo” had trained me to troubleshoot minor issues as an operator without having to escalate to him as Tier 2 since I worked the graveyard shift. Most of the time, a soft reboot on the HMS would resolve any delays or issues that were common, and I would not have to need to engage him. I worked with him for a few months and escalated to him four times. During those times that “Sabo” was escalated, he drove in to the headend and would resolve it with his elevated permissions and institutional knowledge. After resolving the problem, we would chit chat and tell stories. “Sabo” was a good guy in my book, and I never had any issues with him, but I had heard stories from the other hotel support technicians and from my own colleagues in the NOC. One day, just a little bit before the end of my shift at 10 AM, “Sabo” arrived at the office with his usual cordiality to me, but noticed a stark contrast when he was called into our managers office and then the silent brooding walks to HR. After a half-hour, he came back down and shook my hand and said, “Nice working with you.” and left with his backpack. An hour later, our entire HMS system went down. “Sabo” had retained all his equipment and remote access and resolved to take down what was once “his.” Let me reiterate that he was the sole individual with privileged access to and intimate knowledge of the HMS system, he had a clear understanding
of what was to happen. The solution was effectively a tear down and rebuild by the vendor. Suffice it to say, it had cost us a lot of time and therefore money to restore. As Shaw & Fischer state in their report, “many offenses occurred after discharge...” and involved employee remote access (2005). This is a classic example of egoism along with a failure of policy to offboard and lack of measures to protect from abuse. Reference: Shaw, E. & Fischer, L. (2005). Ten Tales of Betrayal: The Threat to Corporate Infrastructures by Information Technology Insiders Analysis and Observations (Report 05-13). Defense Human Resources Activity. https://www.dhra.mil/Portals/52/Documents/perserec/tr05-13.pdf
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help