Seeking Input: CCI-001459 Remediation - Temp Account Termination

Shawn Wells shawn at redhat.com
Wed Apr 25 22:32:02 UTC 2012


Agreed. I'll use that value unless someone screams.

-Shawn

On 4/25/12 3:43 PM, Joe Wulf wrote:
> Shawn,
>
> 90 days seems like a reasonable number.
>
> R,
> -Joe
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Shawn Wells <shawn at redhat.com>
>     *To:* scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:18 PM
>     *Subject:* Seeking Input: CCI-001459 Remediation - Temp Account
>     Termination
>
>     Hey Guys,
>
>         CCI-001459 requires that temp accounts be terminated after a
>     organizationally defined period of time. Right now we don't have a
>     check/control that implements that.
>
>         I'd like to add prose that recommends that -ALL- accounts be
>     locked after 60 (or  90... or 120..) days of inactivity. This
>     would allow us to automatically meet CCI-001459 and enforces that
>     inactive accounts should (eventually and automatically) be frozen.
>
>         Thoughts? My thinking is that 90 days of inactivity is a good
>     number.
>
>     -Shawn
>     _______________________________________________
>     scap-security-guide mailing list
>     scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
>     <mailto:scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org>
>     https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/scap-security-guide/attachments/20120425/b836e291/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the scap-security-guide mailing list