Management Network

[Tiger Shark]

Telnet is being used by the network admins to connect to the routers on the network (Please hold the boo's til the end). Having over 100 devices to change over to ssh and implement an authenication method will take a significant amount of time to coordinate with networking.....Y, because they are resisting the change........

Ok, now you have me confused.... Who runs the network, networking or the network admins? Why are networking resisting a simple change in access application, which is all it really is?

Then again, how often are we making changes to routers? Surely it's not something someone is doing daily and if it is why isn't the architecture organized in such a way as to minimize the exposure of clear text transmissions?

I dunno.... A gazillion questions here.... not sure what direction to go.....

[uno_digerati]

Sorry Tiger...Let me clarify
Networking = Network admins
The change to ssh from Telnet is still a change and these guys operate under the "if it ain't broke leave it alone" principle. There are a couple of devices that will need to have upgrades (firmware, or the device itselfwill need replaced). In my mind it is a simple and necessary change, however, it is the red tape and proving my point that is taking time. And the prying of fingers off of purse strings.
Our Routers are not often accessed and the amount of traffic is limited, however, I am still going to push for more secure transmissions. LOL, At the top of the list of gazzilion questions is....Why do I even bother trying to convince them this is a good thing......

[AngelicKnight]

Why do I even bother trying to convince them this is a good thing......

Let me just say -- I FEEL YOUR PAIN! I'm in the exact same position here...

[Tiger Shark]

Uno:

Ok, the fog is clearing....

In many ways I'm all for the "if it ain't broke...." routine.... I really hate breaking stuff that works perfectly well only to find that the "rollback" isn't _exactly_ as advertised.... <LOL>

In these situations I have a tendency to fall back on my "personal risk assessment" strategy. It's a little different insofar as it takes in the other parameter.... That of the politics of having to deal with morons..... The thought process goes kinda like this, (it's my 12 step program ):-

Step 1. From a security standpoint I "think" this is a good idea.
Step 2. Who will bitch, moan and complain.
Step 3. Do I care.... If "No" go to step 10
Step 4. What is the actual level of risk, ie: what is the likelihood of something bad happening.
Step 5. If step 4 tends to zero, forget it if step 3 is "Yes"
Step 6. If step 4 tends to infinity then if step 3 is "Yes" what can I actually do to convince them it's "a good thing".
Step 7. If step 6 indicates "nothing" then what can I do to monitor and mitigate the issues.
Step 8. If step 7 indicates "nothing" then tell them the software costs too much to do it any other way.
Step 9. If step 8 doesn't convince them make up a scenario that is utterly outrageous .
Step 10. Implement it anyway and tell them that you have a "network problem"
Step 11. Use your superior technical knowledge, (and ability to bullshit), to head them off at every pass until they get used to the "limitations" in your system.....
Step 12. When they are _really_ frustrated tell them you found a "work-around"....
Step 12 1/2. Sit back, pop a tinnie and put another "victory" on your departments standard....

It works for me.... <LOL>

[uno_digerati]

Tiger....Sounds like words of wisdom to me.....I think I will hang them in my office on Monday. Thanks to all the insight from everyone.