4 ms·
How is that any different than an employer forcing their laptops provided to employees through a VPN (where the user is subject to inspection/blacklist/whitelis
by emidln 11y ago
How is that any different than an employer forcing their laptops provided to employees through a VPN (where the user is subject to inspection/blacklist/whitelist/etc) all the time? In both situations you have a machine provided to someone for a specific purpose (business/education) that likely describes extremely particular acceptable use cases. MITM traffic on whatever network seems like a valid way to enforce that. Doing your banking on your own machine.
- kuschku 11y agoBecause in many cases these pupils take it home, and use it for private usage?
- pierrec 11y agoThese forced MitMs are all very similar, though I don't see how that gets us anywhere. It's not a valid way of enforcing any policy no matter how twisted, because people will root their devices and circumvent the lock-down. The reason I call it twisted is because I'm wondering why that lock-down is necessary in the first place: you don't want them to "abuse" the device, causing potential damage? This might be a valid concern with company cars due to the life-threatening aspect of driving, but extending this concept to laptops seems abusive. Either way, the risk posed to the school or company's assets can be effectively taken into account by some kind of insurance policy, not by attempting to lock down the device.
- jackgavigan 11y ago"So how did the hackers get into the corporate network?" "One of our execs downloaded a game from the Internet that contained malware and then he connected his laptop to the corporate network..."
- kuschku 11y agoIf a single person with a laptop can damage your whole network, you have completely different issues.