I have seen HDDs advertised as WI (write intensive), RI (read intensive), and MU (mixed use). The advertising says that the WI drives will last longer under write intensive loads. I don’t know how much truth there is to that.
Hard drives are quite reliable these days. According to the Backblaze stats, the annualized failure rate for modern drives is only about 1.5%. And these guys beat the living shit out of their drives.
I thought that legally the server side had to retain emails for 5 - year terms particularly for legal situations. If google were subpoenaed I believe they would hav two provide
What makes you think that? Which country and law says that it’s the cloud providers responsibility, and not the company in question?
Where I am, there’s law that says architects need to keep building drawings for 99 years. That’s not up to autodesk. That’s up to the architecture firm using autodesk products.
It happened to an IT client of mine. He attempted to delete 10 years of cloud files and emails on google to escape forth coming legal troubles about a year in advance. The accounts were deleted. Long before I was involved. He thought he could get away with it. It was at that point that I learned that wasn’t the case. At least with all of his google files, and any email he sent over another AOL account going back five years.
I figured that made sense. Ofcourse shady people will try to cover their digital tracks.
Ok so two things here: you were probably never privy to the legal costs associated with Google being required to do a re-discovery. Google makes no promise to backup your data though there are provisions to restore things from the trash. Eg emails and files lost or deleted recently. Google then also have tools for you to do some of this work yourself eg: workspace.google.com/products/vault/ which meets your company legal requirement if you configure and pay for it. Again that’s not backup, that’s archive for legal discovery but lines can get blurry when multiple tools which solve different issues can effectively do the same thing.
Issue two: As an administrator there’s no denying even if they did you still wouldn’t have followed the backup 3-2-1 rule. You never had something on a medium not google even if you thought there were three copies and you consider Google replication to at least two physical sites.
To be honest I’m not experienced with Google but this is the normal expectation of cloud services. If you don’t have explicit terms of agreement to data recovery in a disaster, then you probably don’t have it.
Ps: I’m going to imagine your former boss paid a lot of additional fees, lawyer fees, google fees and court fees if it really had to be recovered that way. Nothing comes for free.
I’ve my own experience with Microsoft not having backups and directors not understanding that Microsoft explicitly do not promise backups. A user mailbox got delicensed, but when it was delicensed, the mailbox didn’t reattach. In the end it never came back after using our Gold partnership and paid support. We even had the guid. It was lost forever.
I reconstructed much of the mail, other mailboxes in the tenancy had emails from them or to them or were either cc or BCC so doing enough discovery I could eventually restore about 75% of the mail by getting the same email but from other mailboxes.
Nobody has ever doubted using a backup solution is required since.
Thank you for sharing those additional details. The individual in question had an interesting background, an officer leaving a publicly traded tech company during the dot com bubble and returning to face a massive lawsuit with involving all his former partners. The fact that everyone associated with the company was subpoenaed suggests a comprehensive investigation. Perhaps it was the clients profile?
Regarding the individual’s attempt to delete correspondence, it’s challenging to ascertain the exact reasons for the data being provided to legal. Several factors might have played a role, such as the timing of the lawsuit, data retention policies of the tech companies involved, and legal obligations to cooperate with investigations going on while this individual was sailing the world for a decade completely disconnected from his past involvement with that entity. I was never privy to more information, so it’s hard to determine if it was related to the person’s identity or simply what they did.
As for data deletion, tech support informed me that deactivating or deleting said m accounts and waiting for a significant period (5-years) might ensure complete deletion. However, the companies explained that they had their own data retention policies (mid 2010s) that could impact the extent of data removal even after the user made such attempts. And the user couldn’t count on it being really gone due to those retention policies.
The outcome was that at least enough of his data was recovered to be condemning.
I have had other similar experiences with retention of deceased’s data. However I do not have expert knowledge on how each of on the specific practices of the companies involved.
Law firms are the worst. They think they are the law so don’t give a shit. I have a family member working at one at the moment. So many illegal things they do it’s astounding.
I had to twist our IT guy’s arm to update after reading about this yesterday. Apparently he was waiting for a “convenient” time to do it for nearly 3 weeks. It took less than 3 minutes to update…
Just subscribed, came here for the same reasons! Hoping this place can take off, because main reason I was going to give Reddit a single of iota of traffic going forward was for the Mega Patch Tuesday Threads, those are so insanely helpful that they are the first place I go before patching now. Hopefully we’ll some going in here as well, maybe our lord and savior JoshTaco will grace us with their presence as well 🤞 🚬
Gstatic.com is a domain owned by Google that serves as a content delivery service that caches all unchanging files in a server near the user to reduce load times. It is used to load content from Google’s Content Delivery Network (CDN) and store static data like JS libraries, stylesheets, and images. Gstatic.com also verifies connectivity to the internet for Chrome browser and Android devices. Google hosts its static content on a specific server called Gstatic to reduce bandwidth usage and deliver the content faster. Gstatic.com also allows users to embed Google Maps images on their web pages without requiring JavaScript. Gstatic.com is not a virus, but security software may display pop-ups about it.
Depends on how secure your seecure network is, but generally speaking I wouldn't allow it. As you said, it's way to broad and gives away control of what is loading and what comes on your network.
Based on this quick article, softwarekeep.com/help-center/what-is-gstatic-com#…. It feels like just allowing all of gstatic is a bit of a security nightmare. I’d push back and have them identify the parts of gstatic they actually need for their website to work and allow those.
Alternatively, if this application needs a cdn but is only intended for local hosting in the secure network, perhaps a locally hosted cdn could be a good idea.
Without knowing the security in place it’s hard to do much beyond give general maybe this or that.
It comes down to the risk appetite of the business. You mention a “secure” network, but you already have internet access. So, it seems that some access to resources on the internet is already an accepted risk. Beyond the possibility that a random attacker might leverage the gstatic CDN to attack your network, do you have any other specific threats which make you hesitant to whitelist it? Are those threats large enough that the business would consider them to great a risk to that network? Do you have other mitigating controls in place? Would something like traffic inspection or endpoint protection be a sufficient mitigating control? Can the systems with the offending app be firewalled off from the rest of the network? Could the specific assets needed by cached internally and requests for gstatic redirected? What other compensating controls can be put in place to mitigate the risk?
All that said, have you brought the issued to your management and gotten their input on the risk? In the end, it’s a business decision and should be decided on by the business leaders. If they want to take the risk of allowing that network to access gstatic, that’s on them.
Sysadmin
Oldest